[AUTHORIZED    EDITION.] 


LIFE 


OP 


STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS, 

UNITED  STATES  SENATOR   FROM  ILLINOIS. 


ITII 


His  most  Important  Speeches  and  Eeports, 


BY  H.  M.  FLINT. 


USTEW    YOIfcK: 
DERBY    &    JACKSON,    PUBLISHERS, 

18GO. 


ENTEHKI  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  ,he  year  1350,  by 
DERBY    &    JACKSON, 

lathe  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the  Sontheiu  Disk  let  of 
New  York. 


\V   II.  TI.NSON,  Stereotyper.  OEO.  RUSSELL  &  Co  ,  Print*--* 


THE  proofs  of  this  work  having  been  submitted  to 
several  of  Mr.  Douglas'  most  judicious  friends,  it  is 
believed  by  them  to  be  a  true  and  faithful  exposition 
of  the  leading  incidents  of  his  career,  and  is  bj  them 
cordially  recommended  as  authentic  and  reliable. 


4962 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  I. 

PAQB 

INTRODUCTORY, 10 


CHAPTER  II. 

Parentage,  Birth,  and  early  Life  of  Stephen  A.  Douglas — He  Studies  Law 
— Goes  to  the  West — Teaches  School — Admitted  to  Practise  Law — His 
Success  as  a  Lawyer,  and  the  Causes  of  it — Becomes  Attorney  General 
of  Illinois — Elected  to  the  State  Legislature — Electioneers  for  Martin 
Van  Buren  for  President,  in  1840 — Makes  207  Speeches  in  that  "Year, 
av.d  carries  Illinois  for  the  Democracy — Becomes  a  Judge  of  the 
Supreme  Court — Is  Elected  to  Congress  in  1843,  .  .  .  .  lt> 

CHAPTER  III. 

Mr.  Douglas'  First  Session  in  Congress — His  Speech  upon  the  Improve 
ment  by  Congress  of  Western  Rivers  and  Harbors — His  Great  Speech  on 
the  Bill  to  Refund  General  Jackson's  Fine — General  Jackson's  Opinion 
of  the  Speech — Mr.  Douglas  Reflected  to  Congress,  .  .  .  20 

CHAPTER  IV. 

Speech  in  Favor  of  the  Re-Annexation  of  Texas — Mr.  Douglas  reports  Joint 
Resolutions,  declaring  Texas  to  be  one  of  the  United  States — Texas 
Annexed,  .  .  T  -  .  .  .  .„.  .  •  •  25 


VI  CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  V. 

Speech  in  Vindication  of  the  Administration — Mr.  Douglas  elected  to  Con 
gress  a  third  time, ;  .  .  •  28 

CHAPTER  VI. 

Mr.  Douglas  Elected  to  the  United  States  Senate — He  opposes  the  Wllmot 
Proviso— Speech  on  the  Ten  Regiment  Bill— Bill  for  the  Establishment 
of  the  Territory  of  Nebraska — Pass  to  Gen.  Santa  Anna — Exertions  of 
Mr.  Douglas  in  procuring  Grants  of  Land  to  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad 
— He  endeavors  to  extend  the  Missouri  Compromise  Line  to  the  Pacific 
Ocean — The  Design  defeated  by  Northern  Votes — Bill  for  the  Admission 
of  California — Indian  Titles  in  the  North-west — Protection  to  Emi 
grants, 32 

CHAPTER  VII. 

Mr.  Douglas  supports  the  Compromise  Measures  of  Henry  Clay — Great 
Speech  on  the  13th  and  14th  of  March — Speech  in  favor  of  the  Omnibus 
Bill,  June  3 — The  Nicholson  Letter  of  General  Cass — Mr.  Douglas  re 
turns  to  Chicago — He  is  Denounced  by  the  Local  Authorities— He 
beards  the  Lions  in  their  Den — Speech  to  the  Citizens  of  Chicago— Its 
Effect,  .  .  .  .  .  .  ...  .  .39 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

Speech  in  favor  of  making  Gen.  Winfield  Scott  a  Lieutenant-General — 
Speech  on  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law — Speech  on  the  Foreign  Policy  of  the 
United  States — Retrospective  View  of  the  Course  of  Mr.  Douglas  in 
Congress  up  to  this  Time  (1852) — Mr.  Douglas  the  real  Author  of  the 
Compromise  Measures  of  1850 — Bill  for  the  Organization  of  the  Territo 
ries  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska— Mr.  Douglas  opposes  the  Oregon  Treaty 
with  England — Opposes  the  Peace  Treaty  with  Mexico — Speech  on  the 
Clayton  and  Bulwer  Treaty — Report  on  the  Organization  of  Nebraska 
and  Kansas — The  Nebraska  Bill — Debate  on  it — The  bill  passed,  .  47 

CHAPTER  IX. 
Mr.  Douglas  at  Chicago,  1854,  .  65 


CONTENTS.  Ml 


CHAPTER  X. 

Report  of  Mr.  Douglas  on  the  Territorial  Policy  of  the  Government- 
Speech  in  Reply  to  Trunibull,  and  in  Support  of  the  Bill  authorizing  the 
People  of  Kansas  to  form  a  Constitution  and  State  Government — Speech 
in  Reply  to  Mr.  Collamer — The  Bill  passed  by  the  Senate — Report  of 
Mr.  Douglas  on  the  House  Bill, 72 


CHAPTER  XI. 

A  Retrospect — Origin  and  Causes  of  Disagreement  with  the  President — 
Not  Provoked  by  Mr.  Douglas — Mr.  Buchanan  owes  his  Nomination  at 
Cincinnati  to  Mr.  Douglas — Telegraphic  Dispatches— His  Efforts  to  Elect 
Mr.  Buchanan  in  1856 — Speech  at  Springfield  in  1857,  defending  the 
Administration — President's  Instructions  to  Governor  Walker — Consti 
tution  to  be  Submitted — Executive  Dictation — Differences  of  Opinion 
tolerated  on  all  Subjects  except  Lecompton — Mr.  Douglas'  Propositions 
for  Adjustment — Resolutions  of  Illinois  Democracy — Controversy  termi 
nated  by  the  English  Bill — War  Renewed  by  the  Administration — Coali 
tion  between  the  Federal  Officeholders  and  the  Abolitionists — Mr.  Dou 
glas'  last  Speech  in  the  Senate  preparatory  to  Illinois  Canvass,  .  80 


CHAPTER  XII. 

New  Aspect  of  Affairs  at  the  Federal  Capitol — Mr.  Douglas  calls  OD 
the  President  for  Information  in  regard  to  Affairs  in  Kansas — Great 
Speech  of  Mr.  Douglas  against  the  Lecompton  Constitution — Speech  in 
Favor  of  the  Crittenden-Montgomery  Amendment — Speech  on  the  Eng 
lish  Bill — Speech  in  favor  of  conferring  on  the  President  Power  to  pun- 
iih  British  Outrages,  .  .  .  »  .  .  .  .  .93 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

Mr.  Douglas  returns  to  Chicago — Brilliant  Reception — Makes  his  Speech 
opening  the  Campaign — Lays  down  Principles  on  which  he  conducted 
it, 104 


V121  CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER   XIV. 

Mr.  Douglas  leaves  Chicago  for  New  Orleans — Received  at  St.  Louis  aud 
Memphis — Brilliant  Reception  at  New  Orleans.     ..."     142 


CHAPTER  XY. 

Mr.  Douglas  again  in  Washington — Experiences  a  Change  of  Atmosphere— - 
Scene  shifts — Removed  from  Post  of  Chairman  of  Territorial  Commit 
tee — His  Services  as  Chairman — Pretext  of  Removal — Freeport  Speech — 
Letter  to  California  in  reply  to  Dr.  Gwin, 144 


CHAPTER    XVI. 

Letters  to  Dorr  and  Peyton — Speeches  in' Ohio,  and  Cincinnati  Platform — 
Charleston  Convention — Presidental  Aspirants — The  Harper  Article — 
Black's  Reply — Appendix  of  Attorney  General — Rejoinder  of  Senator 
Douglas — The  Chase  and  Trumbull  Amendments — Consistency  of  Sena 
tor  Douglas, 168 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

Great  Speech  of  Mr.  Douglas  on  the  Harper's  Ferry  Invasion — Anxiety  to 
hear  him — His  Speeches  in  Reply  to  Senators  Fessenden,  Jeff.  Davis, 
and  Seward — The  Caucus  of  Senators — Their  Utopian  Platform,  .  189 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

Conventions  of  Illinois,  Indiana,  Ohio,  Minnesota,  Iowa,  Wisconsin  and 
Michigan  ;  also  of  Maine,  New  Hampshire,  Vermont,  Connecticut  and 
New  York — Claims  of  the  North-west—  Conclusion,  .  .  .  205 


OF    THE 

UNIVERSITY 

OF 


LIFE    AND    SPEECHES 


OF 


STEPHEN  A.  DOUG-LAS, 


INTRODUCTORY   CHAPTER. 

THE  object  of  the  author  of  this  book  is  to  present  to  the 
people  of  the  United  States  a  truthful  delineation  of  the 
character  and  qualities  of  the  greatest  American  statesman 
now  living. 

The  public  life  of  Mr.  Douglas  naturally  divides  itself  into 
five  periods.  The  first,  from  his  entrance  into  Congress  in 
1843,  to  the  close  of  the  war  against  Mexico,  in  1848. 
Second,  from  the  close  of  the  Mexican  War  to  the  passage  of 
the  Compromise  measures  of  1850.  Third,  from  the  passage 
of  the  Compromise  of  1850,  to  the  passage  of  the  Nebraska 
Bill  in  1854.  Fourth,  from  the  passage  of  the  Nebraska  Bill, 
to  the  third  election  of  Mr.  Douglas  to  the  Senate,  in  the  fall 
of  1858.  Fifth,  from  the  commencement  of  his  third  Senate 
rial  term,  in  March,  1859,  to  the  meeting  of  the  Charleston 
Convention  in  April,  1860. 

During  the  first  period,  Mr.  Douglas  appears  among  the 
most  active  and  influential  friends  of  the  re-annexation  of 

1* 


10  THE     LIFE     AND      SPEECHES     OF 

Texas  to  the  United  States,  and  causes  to  be  run  through 
Texas  the  Missouri  Compromise  line  of  36°  30' ;  and  when 
the  war  with  Mexico  breaks  out,  he  is  found  among  the 
ablest  supporters  of  the  administration,  and  one  of  the  fore 
most  of  our  statesmen  in  upholding  the  honor  of  our  flag 
and  in  prosecuting  the  war  with  a  vigor  and  prudence  that 
led  to  an  honorable  and  satisfactory  peace.  In  this  period, 
too,  Mr.  Douglas  is  seen  endeavoring  to  cany  out  in  good 
faith  the  principles  of  the  Missouri  Compromise,  by  extending 
the  line  of  36°  30'  westward  through  our  acquisitions  from 
Mexico  to  the  Pacific  Ocean  ;  in  which  attempt  he  was  frus 
trated  by  northern  Freesoilers. 

GKEAT  MEASURES  OF  ME.  DOUGLAS. 

The  second  period  was  one  of  the  most  important  in  the 
whole  life  of  Mr.  Douglas.  He  is  seen  at  this  time,  shaping 
and  molding  for  the  territories  of  the  United  States,  those 
institutions  of  government  upon  which  his  fame  as  a  states 
man  rests,  and  upon  which  depend  the  happiness  of  millions 
of  American  citizens,  and  the  prosperity  of  a  dozen  new 
States.  In  treating  of  this  period  of  the  life  of  Mr.  Douglas, 
I  have  shown  that  he  is  the  real  author  of  the  Compromise 
measures  of  1850,  so  generally  attributed  to  Henry  Clay. 
In  this  period,  too,  we  see  Mr.  Douglas  coming  home  to  his 
constituents,  and  in  the  presence  of  an  infuriated  mob,  pro 
claiming  the  propriety  and  expediency  of  those  measures 
with  such  matchless  eloquence,  that  the  voices  of  faction  and 
fanaticism  were  hushed,  and  the  citizens  of  Chicago  passed 
resolutions  declaring  their  adherence  to  those  very  measures 
which  they  had  the  day  before  denounced. 

Toward  the  close  of  the  third  period,  we  see  Mr.  Douglas 
bringing  forward  the  details  of  his  great  plan  for  the  gov 
ernment  of  the  territories,  in  the  shape  of  the  Kansas  and 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  H 

Nebraska  bills;  explaining  and  elucidating  the  principles 
upon  which  they  are  based,  and  urging  their  adoption  by 
Congress.  And  when  these  measures  were  passed,  we  see 
him  coming  home  to  a  constituency  that  refused  to  hear  him 
vindicate  their  justice  and  propriety. 

During  the  fourth  period,  we  see  the  evils  that  resulted  in 
Kansas,  from  attempts  to  evade  or  disregard  the  principles 
of  the  Nebraska  Bill.  We  see  the  President  of  the  United 
States  exerting  the  whole  strength  of  his  administration  in 
attempting  to  force  a  constitution  repugnant  to  their  wishes 
on  the  people  of  Kansas  ;  and  Mr.  Douglas  energetically  and 
with  all  his  might  resisting  the  tyrannical  proceeding,  and 
vindicating  the  right  of  the  people  of  the  territories  in  all 
time  to  come,  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  institutions 
in  their  own  way.  When  the  British  also,  in  1858,  attacked  no 
less  than  thirty-three  of  our  vessels  in  the  space  of  four  weeks-, 
and  when  the  Senate  were  about  to  pass  the  customary 
resolutions,  declaring  that  such  acts  were  very  annoying  tc 
the  United  States,  and  ought  not  to  be  committed,  we  see 
Mr.  Douglas  urging  upon  Congress  the  instant  adoption  of 
such  energetic  measures  on  our  part  as  should  compel  Great 
Britain  not  only  to  cease  such  outrages  in  future,  but  also  to 
make  reparation  for  those  she  had  committed. 


"THE  KETUEN   FROM  ELBA." 

During  this  period  also,  we  see  the  great  campaign  in  the 
autumn  of  1858,  the  election  of  a  senator  from  Illinois  for 
the  next  six  years,  the  gallant  stand  made  by  Mr.  Douglas, 
and  the  unscrupulous  efforts  made  by  federal  officials  and 
Abolitionists  to  crush  him.  Like  Napoleon  on  his  return 
from  Elba,  Mr.  Douglas,  on  his  return  to  Illinois,  in 
spired  his  numerous  friends  with  unbounded  enthusiasm. 
We  see  the  momentous  struggle  between  Mr.  Douglas  and  the 


12  THE      LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OP 

Democratic  party  on  the  one  side,  and  the  allied  forces 
of  the  Republicans,  Abolitionists,  and  office-holders  on 
the  other.  We  see  the  battles  and  skirmishes  of  the  cam 
paign  ;  in  every  engagement,  we  see  the  utter  discomfiture 
of  the  unholy  alliance,  and  the  triumph  of  the  right — and 
always,  in  the  forefront  of  the  battle,  we  hear  the  clarion 
voice  of  the  great  leader  of  the  democracy.  Finally,  we  see 
his  victory  over  all  his  enemies,  and  witness  his  triumphant 
return  to  the  Senate,  bearing  high  aloft  the  glorious  banner 
of  the  Democracy,  unstained  and  untarnished. 

During  the  last  period,  we  see  the  hostility  of  the  Executive 
manifested  in  the  removal  of  Mr.  Douglas  from  the  chair 
manship  of  the  Committee  on  Territories ;  the  war  of  the 
pamphlets ;  the  Senate  proceedings  following  the  horrible 
plot  of  John  Brown;  and  the  ridiculous  attempt  on  the  part 
of  a  few  senators  to  make  a  platform  for  the  Charleston 
Convention  entirely  incompatible  with  the  known  principles 
of  Mr.  Douglas.  We  see  the  uprising  of  the  people  all  over 
the  nation  in  favor  of  Mr.  Douglas  for  the  Presidency,  the 
proceedings  of  the  several  State  conventions,  and  their 
unanimity  in  designating  Mr.  Douglas  as  their  choice  above 
all  other  men.  Finally,  we  see  the  meeting  of  the  Charleston 
Convention ;  and  we  may  reasonably  hope  to  see  the  nomi 
nation  of  Judge  Douglas  for  the  Presidency,  and  his  triumph 
ant  election. 

PERSONAL   APPEARANCE. 

The  Rev.  Win.  H.  Milburn,  the  blind  preacher,  in  his 
interesting  book,  "  Ten  Years  of  Preacher  Life,"  gives  the 
following  graphic  sketch  of  his  impressions  of  Mr.  Douglas  : 

"  The  first  time  I  saw  Mr.  Douglas  was  in  June,  1838,  standing  on  the 
gallery  of  the  Market  House,  which  some  of  my  readers  may  recollect  as 
situate  in  the  middle  of  the  square  of  Jacksonville.  He  and  Colonel  John 
J.  Hardin  were  engaged  in  canvassing  Morgan  County  for  Congress.  He 


STEP  II  EN     A.     DOUGLAS.  13 

tvas  upon  the  threshold  of  that  great  world  in  which  he  has  since  played 
so  prominent  a  part,  and  was  engaged  in  making  one  of  his  earliest  stump 
speeches.  I  stood  and  listened  to  him,  surrounded  by  a  motley  crowd  of 
backwood  farmers  and  hunters,  dressed  in  homespun  or  deerskin,  my 
boyish  breast  glowing  with  exultant  joy,  as  he,  only  ten  years  my  senior, 
battled  so  bravely  for  the  doctrines  of  his  party  with  the  veteran  and  ac 
complished  Hardin.  True,  I  had  been  educated  in  political  sentiments 
opposite  to  his  own,  but  there  was  something  captivating  in  his  manly 
straightforwardness  and  uncompromising  statement  of  his  political  prin 
ciples.  He  even  then  showed  signs  of  that  dexterity  in  debate,  and  vehe 
ment,  impressive  declamation,  of  which  he  has  since  become  such  a  master. 
He  gave  the  crowd  the  color  of  his  own  mood  as  he  interpreted  their 
thoughts  and  directed  their  sensibilities.  (His  first-hand  knowledge  of  the 
people,  and  his  power  to  speak  to  them  in  their  own  language,  employing 
arguments  suited  to  their  comprehension,  sometimes  clinching  a  series  of 
reasons  by  a  frontier  metaphor  which  refused  to  be  forgotten,  and  his  de 
termined  courage,  which  never  shrank  from  any  form  of  difficulty  or  dan 
ger,  made  him  one  of  the  most  effective  stump-orators  I  have  ever  hear^.J 

u  Less  than  four  years  before,  he  had  walked  into  the  town  of  Winches 
ter,  sixteen  miles  southwest  of  Jacksonville,  an  entire  stranger,  with 
thirty-seven  and  a  half  cents  in  his  pocket,  his  all  of  earthly  fortune.  His 
first  employment  was  as  clerk  of  a  '  Vandu,'  as  the  natives  call  a  sheriff's 
sale.  He  then  seized  the  birch  of  the  pedagogue,  and  sought  by  its  aid 
and  by  patient  drilling,  to  initiate  a  handful  of  half-wild  boys  into  the  sub 
lime  mysteries  of  Liudley  Murray.  His  evenings  were  divided  between 
reading  newspapers,  studying  Blackstone,  and  talking  politics.  He,  before 
long,  by  virtue  of  his  indomitable  energy,  acquired  enough  of  legal  lore  to 
pass  an  examination,  and  'to  stick  up  his  shingle,'  as  they  call  putting  up 
a  lawyer's  sign.  And  now  began  a  series  of  official  employments,  by 
which  he  has  mounted  within  five  and  twenty  years,  from  the  obscurity  of 
a  village  pedagogue  on  the  borders  of  civilization,  to  his  present  illustrious 
and  commanding  position.  In  the  twelve  or  thirteen  years  that  had 
elapsed  from  the  time  of  his  entering  the  State,  a  friendless,  penniless 
youth,  he  has  served  his  fellow-citizens  in  almost  every  official  capacity, 
and  entered  the  highest  position  within  their  power  to  confer. 

"No  man,  since  the  days  of  Andrew  Jackson,  has  gained  a  stronger  hold 
upon  the  confidence  and  attachment  of  his  adherents,  or  exercised  a  more 
dominating  authority  over  the  masses  of  his  party  than  Judge  Douglas. 
Whether  upon  the  stump,  in  the  caucus,  or  the  Senate,  hispow-er  and  suc 
cess  in  debate  are  prodigious.  His  instincts  stand  him  in  the  stead  of 
imagination,  and  amount  to  genius.  • 


14  THELIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

"  Notwithstanding  the  busy  and  boisterous  political  life  which  he  has  led 
with  all  its  engrossing  cares  and  occupations,  Mr.  Douglas  has,  neverthe 
less,  by  his  invincible  perseverance,  managed  to  redeem  much  time  foi 
self-improvement.  He  has  been  a  wide  and  studious  reader  of  history 
and  its  kindred  branches.  Contact  with  affairs  has  enlarged  his  under 
standing  and  strengthened  his  judgment.  Thus,  with  his  unerring  sagacity, 
his  matured  and  decisive  character,  with  a  courage  which  sometimes  ap 
pears  to  be  audacity,  but  which  is  in  reality  tempered  by  prudence,  a  will 
that  never  submits  to  an  obstacle,  however  vast,  and  a  knowledge  of  the 
people,  together  with  a  power  to  lead  them,  incomparable  in  this  genera 
tion,  he  may  be  accepted  as  a  practical  statesman  of  the  highest 
order. 


The  correspondent  of  the  New  York  "  Times  "  describes 
*\  Douglas  as  follows  :  "The  Little  Giant,  as  he  has  been 
weir-styled,  is  seen  to  advantage  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate. 
He  is  not  above  the  middle  height ;  but  the  easy  and  natural 
dignity  of  his  manner  stamps  him  at  once  as  one  born  to 
command.  His  massive  head  rivets  undivided  attention.  It 
is  a  head  of  the  antique,  with  something  of  the  infinite  in  its 
expression  of  power  :  a  head  difficult  to  describe,  but  better 
worth  description  than  any  other  in  the  country.  Mr.  Doug 
las  has  a  brain  of  unusual  size,  covered  with  heavy  masses  of 
dark  brown  hair,  now  beginning  to  be  sprinkled  with  silver. 
His  forehead  is  high,  open,  and  splendidly  developed,  based 
on  dark,  thick  eyebrows  of  great  width.  His  eyes,  large  and 
deeply  set,  are  of  the  darkest  and  most  brilliant  blue.  The 
mouth  is  cleanly  cut,  finely  arched,  but  with  something  of 
bitter  and  sad  experience  in  its  general  expression.  The 
chin  is  square  and  vigorous,  and  is  full  of  eddying  dimples — 
the  muscles  and  nerves  showing  great  mobility,  and  every 
thought  having  some  external  reflexion  in  the  sensitive  and 
expressive  features.  Add  now  a  rich,  dark  complexion,  clear 
and  healthy  ;  smoothly  shaven  cheeks;  and  handsome  throat; 
small,  white  ears ;  eyes  which  shoot  out  electric  fires  ;  small 
white  hands  ;  small  feet ;  a  full  chest  and  broad  shoulders  ; 


STEP  II  EN     A.     DOUGLAS.  15 


and  with  these  points  duly  blended  together,  we  have  a  pic« 

tup  of  the  Little  Giant. ^ 

^^..^iMc^a  speaker^"  Air.  Douglas  seems  to  disdain  ornament, 
and  marches  right  on  against  the  body  of  his  subject  with 
irresistible  power  and  directness.  His  rhetorical  assault  has 
nothing  of  the  cavalry  slash  in  its  impressiveness,  rather 
resembling  a  charge  of  heavy  infantry  with  fixed  bayonet, 
and  calling  forcibly  to  mind  the  attack  of  those  '  six  thousand 
English  veterans  "  immortalized  by  Thomas  Davis  ^ 

"  '  Steady  they  step  adown  the  slope, 

Steady  they  climb  the  hill ; 
Steady  they  load — steady  they  fire — 
Marching  right  onward  still.' 

His  voice  is  a  rich  and  musical  baritone,  swelling  into  occa 
sional  clarion-blasts  toward  the  close  of  each  important 
period.  He  is  heard  with  breathless  attention,  except  when 
now  and  again  the  galleries  feel  tempted  to  applaud — these 
demonstrations  appearing  to  give  particular  uneasiness  to  the 
Administration,  Secession,  and  Republican  senators." 

Mr.  Douglas  has  been  twice  married.  He  has  two  little 
sons,  the  children  of  his  first  wife.,  who  was  a  southern 
lady.  In  1857,  he  married  Miss  Adele  Cutts,  daughter  of 
James  Madison  Cutts,  Esq.,  second  Controller  of  the  Trea 
sury,  a  beautiful  and  accomplished  woman,  and  well  known 
in  Washington  for  the  amiability  of  her  disposition,  and  the 
goodness  of  her  heart.  He  has  had  one  child,  a  daughter, 
fimce  his  second  marriage. 


16  THE      LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 


CHAPTER  II. 

Parentage,  Birth,  and  early  Life  of  Stephen  A.  Douglas — He  Studies  Law 
— Goes  to  the  West — Teaches  School — Admitted  to  Practise  Law — His 
Success  as  a  Lawyer,  and  the  Causes  of  it — Becomes  Attorney  General 
of  Illinois — Elected  to  the  State  Legislature — Electioneers  for  Martin 
Van  Buren  for  President,  in  1840 — Makes  207  Speeches  in  that  Year, 
and  carries  Illinois  for  the  Democracy — Becomes  a  Judge  of  the 
Supreme  Court — Is  Elected  to  Congress  in  1843. 

STEPHEN  A.  DOUGLAS  was  born  in  the  town  of  Brandon, 
Vermont,  on  the  23d  day  of  April,  1813.  His  father  was  a 
native  of  the  State  of  New  York,  and  a  physician  of  high v 
repute.  His  grandfather  was  a  Pennsylvanian  by  birth,  and 
a  soldier  in  the  Revolutionary  War.  He  was  one  of  those 
soldiers  of  Washington  who  passed  that  terrible  winter  at 
Valley  Forge,  and  was  present  at  the  surrender  of  Lord  Corn- 
wallis.  His  great-grandfather  was  also  an  American  by  birth, 
but  his  ancestors  came  originally  to  this  country  from  Scot 
land.  Dr.  Douglas  died  when  his  little  son  Stephen  was  only 
three  months  old.  From  the  age  of  ten  to  that  of  fifteen 
years,  Stephen  was  sent  to  the  common  schools  of  the  neigh 
borhood.  During  the  last  two  years  of  this  term,  he  was 
noted  for  remarkable  aptitude  for  his  studies,  and  was  ex 
tremely  diligent  and  attentive.  His  quick  perception,  excel 
lent  memory,  and  determination  to  excel  in  his  studies,  wore 
subjects  of  remark  by  his  teachers,  even  at  that  early  period. 
His  disposition  was  'amiable  and  kind,  of  which  fact  there 
are  numerous  instances  related  bv  those  who  were  his  school 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  17 

fellows.      His  temper,   however,   was  naturally   quick  and 
vivacious. 

At  the  age  of  fifteen,  he  expressed  to  his  mother  his 
earnest  desire  to  prepare  for  college  ;  but  it  w^as  decided  at 
a  family  council  that  the  expense  of  a  collegiate  education 
would  make  that  idea  impossible.  "  "Well,  then,"  said 
Stephen,  "  I  will  earn  my  own  living ;"  and  he  immediately 
engaged  himself  as  an  apprentice  to  the  trade  of  cabinet- 
making,  which  was  then  an  excellent  and  lucrative  business. 
He  worked  at  this  trade  for  eighteen  months,  and  then 
abandoned  it  altogether,  as  it  proved  entirely  too  severe  for 
his  constitution.  His  master  has  since  jocularly  remarked, 
that  during  the  time  Stephen  was  with  him,  he  displayed 
his  greatest  ingenuity  in  the  construction  of  bureaus,  cabi- 
nets,  and  secretaries.  At  the  age  of  seventeen,  he  entered 
the  academy  at  Brandon,  and  pursued  his  studies  there  for 
more  than  a  year.  His  mind  was  extremely  active  at  this 
time,  and  he  made  rapid  advancement  in  those  branches  of 
learning  to  which  he  directed  his  attention.  When  the 
family  removed  to  Canandaigua,  New  York,  he  attended  the 
academy  there  as  a  student.  Having  decided  to  make  the 
law  his  profession,  he  entered  the  office  of  Mr.  Ilubbell,  and 
studied  law  till  1833. 

EAELY   LIFE. 

In  the  spring  of  that  year  he  went  to  the  West,  in  search 
of  an  eligible  place  in  which  to  establish  himself  as  a  lawyer. 
He  went  to  a  number  of  cities  and  towns  in  the  West, 
among  them  Cincinnati,  Louisville,  St.  Louis,  and  Jackson 
ville,  Illinois.  At  Winchester,  a  little  town  sixteen  miles 
from  Jacksonville,  he  found  there  was  no  school,  and  imme- 
mediately  opened  one.  He  obtained  forty  pupils  without 
any  difficulty,  whom  he  taught  for  three  months,  at  $3  00  pci 


18  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

quarter.  He  devoted  his  evenings,  during  this  time,  to  tho 
prosecution  cf  his  law  studies.  In  March,  1834,  lie  was 
admitted  to  practise  law,  by  the  judges  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  State.  He  at  once  opened  a  law  office,  and 
"became  remarkably  successful  as  a  legal  practitioner. 

Within  a  year  after  his  admission,  and  while  not  yet 
twenty-two  years  of  age,  he  was  elected  by  the  legislature 
of  Illinois,  attorney-general  of  the  State.  In  1836,  he  wag 
elected  to  the  legislature  by  the  Democrats  of  Morgan 
County,  and  resigned  the  office  of  attorney-general.  At  the 
time  he  took  his  seat  in  the  legislature,  he  was  the  youngest 
member  of  that  body.  In  1837,  he  was  appointed  by  Presi 
dent  Van  Buren  register  of  the  land-office  at  Springfield, 
Illinois.  In  November  of  the  same  year,  he  received  the 
Democratic  nomination  for  Congress,  although  he  was  then 
under  twenty-five  years  of  age,  and  consequently  ineligible. 
He  attained  the  requisite  age,  however,  before  the  day  of 
election,  which  was  in  August,  1838.  At  this  election 
upward  of  36,000  votes  were  cast,  of  which  Mr.  Douglas  re 
ceived  a  majority.  About  twenty  votes  were  rejected  "by  the 
canvassers,  because  in  them  the  name  of  Mr.  Douglas  was 
spelled  incorrectly.  The  quibble  was  a  most  unworthy  one, 
and  would  not  stand  at  this  day.  As  it  was,  the  Whig  can 
didate  was  declared  to  be  elected  by  a  majority  of  only  five 
votes;  and  the  election  was  everywhere  regarded  as  a 
triumph  of  Mr.  Douglas. 

ME.   DOUGLAS   AS   A   LAWYER. 

Retiring  now  from  political  life,  Mr.  Douglas  devoted 
himself  with  assiduity  to  the  practice  of  his  profession.  He 
was  an  able  and  successful  lawyer,  and  his  business  increased 
rapidly.  There  are  many  persons  now  living,  who  were 
clients  and  neighbors  of  Mr.  Douglas  at  this  time,  and  who 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  19 

remember  well  his  demeanor  as  an  advocate.  He  was  noted, 
among  other  things,  for  the  careful  preparation  of  his  cases, 
and  for  his  tact  and  skill  in  the  examination  of  witnesses, 
He  never  went  into  court  with  a  case  until  he  thoroughly 
understood  it  in  all  its  bearings.  His  addresses  to  the  jury 
were  generally  plain  and  clear  statements  of  the  matters  of 
fact,  the  arguments  logical  and  conclusive,  and  his  manner 
earnest  and  impressive.  He  rarely  failed  to  enlist  the  feel 
ings  and  sympathies  of  a  jury. 

In  the  year  1840,  Mr.  Douglas  entered  with  ardor  into  the 
celebrated  "Hard  Cider  and  Log  Cabin"  campaign,  and 
threw  the  whole  weight  of  his  influence  in  favor  of  Martin 
Van  Buren,  the  democratic  candidate  for  President,  and 
against  the  "  Tippecanoe  and  Tyler  too  "  candidates  of  the 
Whig  party.  During  seven  months  of  that  year,  he  tra 
versed  the  State  of  Illinois  in  all  directions,  and  addressed 
207  meetings  of  the  people.  General  Harrison  was  elected 
President,  but  Illinois  was  carried  for  the  Democratic  candi 
dates,  and  Mr.  Douglas  was  mainly  instrumental  in  bringing 
about  this  result. 


ME.  DOUGLAS  ELECTED   TO    CONGRESS. 

In  December,  1840,  Mr.  Douglas  was  appointed  secretary 
of  state  of  Illinois.  In  February,  1841,  he  was  elected  by 
the  legislature  a  judge  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  State. 
This  was  only  seven  years  after  he  had  received,  from  the 
judges  of  that  court,  his  license  to  practise  law.  He  re 
mained  upon  the  bench  of  the  Supreme  Court  for  three 
years.  In  1843  he  was  elected  to  Congress  by  400  majority ; 
and  in  1844  by  a  majority  of  1,900  votes.  He  was  elected  a 
representative  a  third  time  in  1846,  by  a  majority  of  3,000 
votes. 


20  THE     LIFE     ANU     SPEECHES     OF 


CHAPTER  III. 

Mr.  Douglas'  First  Session  in  Congress — His  Speech  upon  the  Improve 
ment  by  Congress  of  Western  Rivers  and  Harbors — His  Great  Speech  on 
the  Bill  to  Refund  General  Jackson's  Fine — General  Jackson's  Opinion 
of  the  Speech — Mr.  Douglas  Reflected  to  Congress. 

ON  taking  his  seat  in  Congress,  Mr.  Douglas  did  not  at 
once  rush  into  the  debates  of  the  House.  He  was  perfectly- 
informed  concerning  the  interests  of  his  constituents,  over 
which  he  exercised  a  watchful  care.  But  for  the  first' session 
or  two  of  Congress,  he  spoke  rarely,  and  briefly ;  familiariz 
ing  himself,  by  study  and  observation,  with  the  rules  of 
debate,  and  the  usages  of  parliamentary  bodies.  When  he 
did  rise  to  address  the  House,  it  was  on  some  practical 
question ;  and  his  remarks  were  always  forcible,  and  to  the 
point. 

IMPROVEMENT    OF   WESTERN   ELVERS. 

His  first  speech  in  Congress  was  upon  the  improvement  of 
western  lakes  and  harbors,  delivered  December  19,  1843. 
lie  had  moved  that  so  much  of  the  President's  message  as 
referred  to  that  subject,  be  referred  to  a  select  committee. 
He  insisted  upon  a  select  committee,  "  because  the  question 
involved  important  interests  requiring  an  accurate  know 
ledge  of  the  condition  of  the  country,  its  navigable 
streams,  and  the  obstructions  to  be  removed.  A  thorough 
examination  of  subjects  so  various,  extensive,  and  intricate, 


STEPHEN     A.DOUGLAS.  21 

and  requiring  so  much  patient  labor  and  toil,  could  not  be 
expected  from  those  who  reside  at  a  great  distance.  He 
desired  a  full,  elaborate,  and  detailed  report  from  those 
whose  local  positions  would  stimulate  them.  Let  this  be 
granted,  and  the  friends  of  the  measure  would  be  content  to 
leave  its  policy  and  propriety  to  the  judgment  of  the 
House."  While  Mr.  Douglas  has  never  ceased  to  take  a  lively 
interest  in  river  and  harbor  improvements  and  the  protection 
of  inland  navigation,  experience  soon  convinced  him  that  the 
practice  of  appropriating  from  the  federal  treasury  for  such 
purposes  had  utterly  failed  to  accomplish  its  object,  and 
that  a  system  of  tonnage  duties  which  he  matured,  and  on 
several  occasions  has  introduced  into  the  Senate,  should  be 
substituted  for  Congressional  appropriations.  Since  the  sys 
tem  of  tonnage  duties  has  been  elaborated  in  Congress,  and 
is  becoming  understood  by  the  public,  the  most  enlightened 
friends  of  the  navigating  interests  are  becoming  satisfied  that 
the  substitute  proposed  by  Mr.  Douglas  would  prove  not 
•>nly  more  economical,  but  more  effective  and  beneficial  in 
'.he  accomplishment  of  their  views. 

In  connection  with  this  subject,  it  should  be  added,  that 
Mr.  Douglas  was  mainly  instrumental  in  securing  the  passage 
of  the  law  by  which  the  maritime  and  admiralty  jurisdiction 
of  the  federal  courts  was  extended  over  the  northern  lakes. 

SPEECH   IN   FAVOK    OP   REMITTING   GEN.    JACKSON'S   PINE. 

On  the  7th  of  January,  1844,  he  delivered  an  eloquent 
speech  on  the  bill  to  refund  to  Gen.  Jackson,  the  fine  unjustly 
imposed  on  him  by  Judge  Hall,  of  New  Orleans.  From 
tliis  speech  we  make  the  following  extracts  : 

"  I  maintain,"  said  Mr.  Douglas,  "  that  in  the  exercise  of 
the  power  of  proclaiming  martial  law,  Gen.  Jackson  did  not 
violate  the  Constitution,  nor  assume  to  himself  any  authority 


22  THE      LIFE     AND      SPEECHES     OF 

not  fully  authorized  and  legalized  by  his  position,  his  duty, 
and  the  necessity  of  the  case.  Gen.  Jackson  \ras  the  agent 
of  the  government,  legally  and  constitutionally  authorized  to 
defend  the  city  of  Xew  Orleans.  It  was  his  duty  to  do  this 
at  all  hazards.  It  was  then  conceded,  and  is  now  conceded, 
that  nothing  but  martial  law  would  enable  him  to  perform 
that  duty.  His  power  was  commensurate  with  his  duty,  and 
he  was  authorized  to  use  the  means  essential  to  its  perform 
ance.  This  principle  has  been  recognized  and  acted  upon  by 
all  civilized  nations,  and  is  familiar  to  all  who  are  conversant 
with  military  history.  It  does  not  imply  the  right  to  suspend 
the  laws  and  civil  tribunals  at  pleasure.  The  right  grows 
out  of  the  necessity.  The  principle  is,  that  the  commanding 
general  may  go  as  far,  and  no  further  than  is  absolutely 
necessary  to  the  defence  of  the  place  committed  to  his  pro 
tection.  There  are  exigencies  in  the  history  of  nations, 
when  necessity  becomes  the  paramount  law,  to  which  all 
other  considerations  must  yield.  If  it  becomes  necessary  to 
blow  up  a  fort,  it  is  right  to  do  it.  If  it  is  necessary  to  sink 
a  ship,  it  is  right  to  sink  it.  If  it  is  necessary  to  burn  a  city, 
it  is  right  to  burn  it." 

********* 
Mr.  Douglas  then  gave  a  graphic  description  of  the  state  of 
affairs  at  New  Orleans  in  December,  1814,  and  January,  1815  ; 
concluding  thus :  "  The  enemy,  composed  of  disciplined 
troops,  four  times  as  numerous  as  our  own  force,  were  in  the 
immediate  vicinity  of  the  city,  ready  for  the  attack  at  any 
moment ;  the  city,  filled  with  traitors,  anxious  to  sur 
render  ;  spies  transmitting  information  to  the  enemy's  camp. 
The  governor  of  the  State,  the  judges,  the  public  authorities, 
and  all  the  chief  citizens,  earnestly  entreated  Gen.  Jackson  to 
declare  martial  law,  as  the  only  means  of  maintaining  the 
safety  of  the  city.  Gen.  Jackson  promptly  issued  the  order, 
and  enforced  it  by  the  weight  of  his  authority.  The  city 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  23 

was  saved.  The  country  was  defended  by  a  succession  of 
the  most  brilliant  military  achievements  that  ever  adorned 
the  annals  of  any  country  or  any  age.  Martial  law  was  con 
tinued  no  longer  than  the  danger  existed.  Judge  Hall  him 
self  had  advised,  urged,  and  solicited  Gen.  Jackson  to 

declare  it." 

********* 

"  The  last  of  the  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors  imputed 
to  Gen.  Jackson  at  New  Orleans,  is  that  of  arresting  Judge 
Hall,  and  sending  him  beyond  the  limits  of  the  city,  with 
instructions  not  to  return  till  peace  was  restored.  The 
justification  of  this  act  is  found  in  the  necessity  which 
required  the  declaration  of  martial  law,  and  its  continuance 
and  enforcement  until  the  enemy  should  have  left,  or  the 
treaty  of  peace  be  ratified.  Judge  Hall,  who  was  by  birth 
an  Englishman,  had  confederated  with  Louallier's  band  of 
conspirators.  Their  movements  were  dangerous.  Gen. 
Jackson  took  the  responsibility,  and  sent  the  judge  beyond 
the  lines  of  his  camp.  Was  this  a  contempt  of  court  ?" 
********* 

"  I  envy  not  the  feelings  of  the  man  who  can  calmly 
reason  about  the  force  of  precedents  in  the  fury  of  tho 
war-cry,  when  '  booty  and  beauty '  is  the  watchword.  Talk 
not  to  me  of  '  forms,  and  rules  of  court '  when  the  enemy's 
cannon  arc  pointed  at  the  door !  The  man  who  could  philo 
sophize  at  such  times,  would  fiddle  while  tho  Capitol  was 
burning.  There  was  but  one  form  necessary  on  that  occa 
sion,  and  that  was,  to  point  cannon  and  destroy  the  enemy." 
*********, 

"  I  grant  that  the  bill  is  unprecedented  :  but  I  desire,  on 
this  day,  to  make  a  precedent  that  shall  command  the  admi 
ration,  of  tho  world.  Besides,  sir,  the  government  has 
repeatedly  recognized  and  sanctioned  the  doctrine,  that  in 
cases  of  necessity,  the  commander  is  fully  justified  in  super 


24:  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 


the  civil  law:  and  that  Congress  will  make  remunera- 

J  O 

tion,  when  the  commander  acted  with  the  view  of  promoting 
the  public  interests.  The  people  demand  this  measure,  and 
they  will  never  be  satisfied  till  their  wishes  shall  have  been 
respected,  and  their  will  obeyed." 

JACKSON'S    OPINION    OF   THIS    SPEECH. 

The  bill  was  passed,  and  the  fine  refunded.  A  year  after 
ward,  Mr.  Douglas,  in  company  with  several  other  members 
of  Congress,  paid  their  respects  to  the  venerable  hero  and 
patriot,  at  the  Hermitage.  When  Mr.  Douglas  was  intro 
duced,  the  old  general  grasped  him  warmly  by  the  hand,  and 
requested  him  to  step  with  him  into  a  private  room.  There, 
in  the  presence  of  two  other  gentlemen  now  living,  and  from 
one  of  whom  we  have  received  this  relation,  the  venerable 
soldier,  in  a  voice  trembling  with  emotion,  thus  addressed 
the  young  statesman  :  "  Mr.  Douglas,  I  read,  with  feelings 
of  lively  gratitude,  your  speech  in  Congress  last  winter,  in 
favor  of  remitting  the  fine  imposed  on  me  by  Judge  Hall.  I 
knew  when  I  proclaimed  and  enforced  martial  law,  that  I 
was  doing  right.  But  never,  until  I  had  read  your  speech, 
could  I  have  expressed  the  reasons  which  actuated  my  con 
duct.  I  knew  that  I  was  not  violating  the  Constitution  of 
my  country.  When  my  life  is  written,  I  wish  that  speech 
of  yours  to  be  inserted  in  it,  as  my  reasons  for  proclaiming 
and  enforcing  martial  law  in  "New  Orleans." 


STEPHEN     A.DOUGLAS.  25 

and  requiring  so  much  patient  labor  and  toil,  could  not  be 
expected  from  those  who  reside  at  a  great  distance.  He 
desired  a  full,  elaborate,  and  detailed  report  from  those 
whose  local  positions  would  stimulate  them.  Let  this  be 
granted,  and  the  friends  of  the  measure  would  be  content  to 
leave  its  policy  and  propriety  to  the  judgment  of  the 
House."  While  Mr.  Douglas  has  never  ceased  to  take  a  lively 
interest  in  river  and  harbor  improvements  and  the  protection 
of  inland  navigation,  experience  soon  convinced  him  that  the 
practice  of  appropriating  from  the  federal  treasury  for  such 
purposes  had  utterly  failed  to  accomplish  its  object,  and 
that  a  system  of  tonnage  duties  which  he  matured,  and  on 
several  occasions  has  introduced  into  the  Senate,  should  be 
substituted  for  Congressional  appropriations.  Since  the  sys 
tem  of  tonnage  duties- has  been  elaborated  in  Congress,  and 
is  becoming  understood  by  the  public,  the  most  enlightened 
friends  of  the  navigating  interests  are  becoming  satisfied  that 
the  substitute  proposed  by  Mr.  Donglas  would  prove  not 

>nly  more  economical,  but  more  effective  and  beneficial  in 

•he  accomplishment  of  their  views. 

In  connection  with  this  subject,  it  should  be  added,  that 
Mr.  Douglas  was  mainly  instrumental  in  securing  the  passage 
of  the  law  by  which  the  maritime  and  admiralty  jurisdiction 
of  the  federal  courts  was  extended  over  the  northern  lakes. 

SPEECH    IN   FAVOR    OF   REMITTING    GEN.    JACKSON'S    FINE. 

On  the  7th  of  January,  1844,  he  delivered  an  eloquent 
speech  on  the  bill  to  refund  to  Gen.  Jackson,  the  fine  unjustly 
imposed  on  him  by  Judge  Hall,  of  New  Orleans.  From 
this  speech  we  make  the  following  extracts  : 

"I  maintain,"  said  Mr.  Douglas,  "that  in  the  exercise  of 
the  power  of  proclaiming  martial  law,  Gen.  Jackson  did  not 
violate  the  Constitution,  nor  assume  to  himself  any  authority 

2 


Zb  THE      LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

not  fully  authorized  and  legalized  by  his  position,  his  duty, 
and  the  necessity  of  the  case.  Gen.  Jackson  \ras  the  agent 
of  the  government,  legally  and  constitutionally  authorized  to 
defend  the  city  of  Xew  Orleans.  It  was  his  duty  to  do  this 
at  all  hazards.  It  was  then  conceded,  and  is  now  conceded, 
that  nothing  but  martial  law  would  enable  him  to  perform 
that  duty.  His  power  was  commensurate  with  his  duty,  and 
he  was  authorized  to  use  the  means  essential  to  its  perform 
ance.  This  principle  has  been  recognized  and  acted  upon  by 
all  civilized  nations,  and  is  familiar  to  all  who  are  conversant 
with  military  history.  It  does  not  imply  the  right  to  suspend 
the  laws  and  civil  tribunals  at  pleasure.  The  right  grows 
out  of  the  necessity.  The  principle  is,  that  the  commanding 
general  may  go  as  far,  and  no  further  than  is  absolutely 
necessary  to  the  defence  of  the  place  committed  to  his  pro 
tection.  There  are  exigencies  in  the  history  of  nations, 
when  necessity  becomes  the  paramount  law,  to  which  all 
other  considerations  must  yield.  If  it  becomes  necessary  to 
blow  up  a  fort,  it  is  right  to  do  it.  If  it  is  necessary  to  sink 
a  ship,  it  is  right  to  sink  it.  If  it  is  necessary  to  burn  a  city, 
it  is  right  to  burn  it." 

********* 
Mr.  Douglas  then  gave  a  graphic  description  of  the  state  of 
affairs  at  New  Orleans  in  December,  1814,  and  January,  1815  ; 
concluding  thus :  "  The  enemy,  composed  of  disciplined 
troops,  four  times  as  numerous  as  our  own  force,  were  in  the 
immediate  vicinity  of  the  city,  ready  for  the  attack  at  any 
moment ;  the  city,  filled*  with  traitors,  anxious  to  sur 
render  ;  spies  transmitting  information  to  the  enemy's  camp. 
The  governor  of  the  State,  the  judges,  the  public  authorities, 
and  all  the  chief  citizens,  earnestly  entreated  Gen.  Jackson  to 
declare  martial  law,  as  the  only  means  of  maintaining  the 
safety  of  the  city.  Gen.  Jackson  promptly  issued  the  order, 
and  enforced  it  by  the  weight  of  his  authority.  The  city 


STEPHEN      A.DOUGLAS.  27 

was  saved.  The  country  was  defended  by  a  succession  of 
the  most  brilliant  military  achievements  that  ever  adorned 
the  annals  of  any  country  t5r  any  age.  Martial  law  was  con 
tinued  no  longer  than  the  danger  existed.  Judge  Hall  him 
self  had  advised,  urged,  and  solicited  Gen.  Jackson  to 
declare  it." 

********* 

"  The  last  of  the  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors  imputed 
to  Gen.  Jackson  at  New  Orleans,  is  that  of  arresting  Judge 
Hall,  and  sending  him  beyond  the  limits  of  the  city,  with 
instructions  not  to  return  till  peace  was  restored.  The 
justification  of  this  act  is  found  in  the  necessity  which 
required  the  declaration  of  martial  law,  and  its  continuance 
and  enforcement  until  the  enemy  should  have  left,  or  the 
treaty  of  peace  be  ratified.  Judge  Hall,  who  was  by  birth 
an  Englishman,  had  confederated  with  Louallier's  band  of 
conspirators.  Their  movements  were  dangerous.  Gen. 
Jackson  took  the  responsibility,  and  sent  the  judge  beyond 
the  lines  of  his  camp.  Was  this  a  contempt  of  court  ?" 
********* 

"  I  envy  not  the  feelings  of  the  man  who  can  calmly 
reason  about  the  force  of  precedents  in  the  fury  of  the 
war-cry,  when  '  booty  and  beauty '  is  the  watchword.  Talk 
not  to  me  of  '  forms,  and  rules  of  court '  when  the  enemy's 
cannon  are  pointed  at  the  door !  The  man  who  could  philo 
sophize  at  such  times,  would  fiddle  while  the  Capitol  was 
burning.  There  was  but  one  form  necessary  on  that  occa 
sion,  and  that  was,  to  point  cannon  and  destroy  the  enemy." 
********* 

"  I  grant  that  the  bill  is  unprecedented  :  but  I  desire,  on 
this  day,  to  make  a  precedent  that  shall  command  the  admi 
ration  of  the  world.  Besides,  sir,  the  government  has 
repeatedly  recognized  and  sanctioned  the  doctrine,  that  in 
cases  of  necessity,  the  commander  is  fully  justified  in  super 


28  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

seding  the  civil  law ;  and  that  Congress  will  make  remunera 
tion,  when  the  commander  acted  Avith  the  view  of  promoting 
the  public  interests.  The  people  demand  this  measure,  and 
they  will  never  be  satisfied  till  their  wishes  shall  have  been 
respected,  and  their  will  obeyed." 

JACKSON'S  OPIXION  OF  THIS  SPEECH. 

The  bill  was  passed,  and  the  fine  refunded.  A  year  after 
ward,  Mr.  Douglas,  in  company  with  several  other  members 
of  Congress,  paid  their  respects  to  the  venerable  hero  and 
patriot,  at  the  Hermitage.  When  Mr.  Douglas  was  intro 
duced,  the  old  general  grasped  him  warmly  by  the  hand,  and 
requested  him  to  step  with  him  into  a  private  room.  There, 
in  the  presence  of  two  other  gentlemen  now  living,  and  from 
one  of  whom  we  have  received  this  relation,  the  venerable 
soldier,  in  a  voice  trembling  with  emotion,  thus  addressed 
the  young  statesman  :  "  Mr.  Douglas,  I  read,  with  feelings 
of  lively  gratitude,  your  speech  in  Congress  last  winter,  in 
favor  of  remitting  the  fine  imposed  on  me  by  Judge  Hall.  I 
knew  when  I  proclaimed  and  enforced  martial  law,  that  I 
was  doing  right.  But  never,  until  I  had  read  your  speech, 
could  I  have  expressed  the  reasons  which  actuated  my  con 
duct.  I  knew  that  I  was  not  violating  the  Constitution  of 
my  country.  When  my  life  is  written,  I  wish  that  speech 
of  yours  to  be  inserted  in  it,  as  my  reasons  for  proclaiming 
and  enforcing  martial  law  in  N"ew  Orleans/' 


STEPHEN      A.     DOUGLAS. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

KE-ANNEXATION     OP    TEXAS. 

Speech  in  Favor  of  the  Re-Annexation  of  Texas — Mr.  Douglas  reports  Joint 
Resolutions,  declaring  Texas  to  be  one  of  the  United  States — Texas 
Annexed.  < 

MR.  DOUGLAS  was  among  the  earliest  advocates  of  the 
annexation  of  Texas ;  on  which  subject  he  made  an-  able 
speech  on  the  6th  of  January,  1845.  In  this  speech  he 
showed  that  the  Texas  question  was  not  at  that  time  a  new 
one :  that  it  did  not  originate  with  Mr.  Tyler :  that  one  of 
first  acts  of  the  administration  of  Gen.  Jackson  had  been  to 
re-open  negotiations  with  Mexico  for  the  annexation  of 
Texas:  that  Mr.  Van  Buren,  then  secretary  of  state,  had 
addressed  a  long  dispatch  to  Mr.  Poinsett,  our  minister  to 
Mexico,  instructing  him  to  endeavor  to  secure  Texas,  raid 
directing  him  to  give  $5,000,000  for  it :  that  the  attempt 
had  been  renewed  by  President  Jackson  in  1833,  and  again 
in  1835.  He  showed  by  the  authority  of  John  Quincy 
Adams,  in  his  official  letters,  especially  the  one  dated 
March  12,  1818,  that  the  western  boundary  of  Louisiana 
extended  to  the  Rio  del  Norte  :  that  the  settlements  made 
between  the  rivers  Sabine  and  Rio  del  Norte,  by  La  Salle, 
in  1685,  under  the  authority  of  Louis  XIV-,  king  of  France, 
together  with  those  on  the  Mississippi  and  the  Illinois, 
formed  the  basis  of  the  original  French  colony  of  Louisiana, 
which  was  ceded  to  the  United  States  in  1803  ;  arid  quoted 
the  language  of  Mr.  Adams,  "  that  the  claim  of  the  United 


30  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

States  to  the  boundary  of  the  Rio  Bravo  del  N" orte  was  as 
clear  as  their  right  to  the  island  of  New  Orleans." 

He  then  went  on  to  show  that  as  the  Rio  del  Norte  was 
the  western  boundary  of  Louisiana,  and  Texas  was  included 
in  the  cession  of  1803,  all  the  inhabitants  of  that  country 
were,  by  the  terms  of  the  treaty,  naturalized,  and  became 
citizens  of  the  United  States ;  and  all  who  migrated  there 
between  1803  and  1819  went  there  under  the  shield  of  the 
Constitution  and  laws  of  the  United.  States,  and  with  the 
guaranty  that  they  would  be  forever  protected  by  them; 
and  quoted  from  the  treaty  of  cession  as  follows :  "  The  in 
habitants  of  the  ceded  territory  shall  be  incorporated  into  the 
Union  of  the  United  States,  and  admitted  as  soon  as  possible, 
according  to  the  principles  of  the  Constitution,  to  the  enjoy 
ments  of  all  the  rights  of  the  United  States." 

"  To  the  fulfillment  of  these  stipulations,"  said  Mr.  Doug 
las,  "  the  sacred  faith  and  honor  of  this  nation  were  solemnly 
pledged.  Yet,  in  violation  of  one  of  them,  Texas  was  ceded 
to  Spain  by  the  treaty  of  1819.  The  American  Republic 
was  severed  by  that  treaty,  a  part  of  its  territory  joined  to 
a  foreign  kingdom,  and  American  citizens  were  transformed 
into  the  subjects  of  a  foreign  despotism.  Texas  did  not 
assent  to  the  separation  ;  she  protested  against  it  promptly 
and  solemnly.  The^protest  and  declaration  of  independence 
of  Texas,  in  June,  1819,  says,  'The  recent  treaty  between 
Spain  and  the  United  States  has  dissipated  an  illusion,  and 
has  aroused  the  citizens  of  Texas.  They  see  themselves 
abandoned  to  the  dominion  of  Spain ;  but,  spurning  the  fet 
ters  of  colonial  vassalage,  they  resolve,  under  the  blessing 
of  God,  to  be  free  and  independent.' 

"  Most  nobly  have  they  maintained  that  righteous  resolve  ; 
first,  against  the  despotism  of  Spain,  and  then  the  tyranny 
of  Mexico,  until,  on  the  plains  of  San  Jacinto,  victory  estab- 
ished  their  independence  and  made  them  free." 


STEP  II  EN     A.     DOUGLAS.  31 

Mr.  Douglas  proceeded  to  enumerate  the  advantages  that 
would  attend  the  annexation  of  Texas,  and  then  went  on  to 
show  that  it  must  be  done  in  accordance  with  the  principles 
of  the  Constitution  ;  proving  the  doctrine  to  have  been  sane 
tioned  and  settled,  that  foreign  territory  may  be  annexed, 
organized  into  territories  and  States,  and  admitted  into  the 
Union  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original  States.  In  con 
cluding  his  remarks  upon  this  point,  Mr.  Douglas  said,  "  The 
conclusion  is  irresistible  that  Congress,  possessing  the  power 
to  admit  a  State,  has  the  right  to  pass  a  law  of  annexation. 
I  do  not  say  that  territory  cannot  be  acquired  in  any  other 
way  than  by  act  of  Congress.  We  may  acquire  it  by  con 
quest,  or  by  treaty,  or  by  discovery.  We  claim  the  Oregon 
Territory  by  virtue  of  the  right  of  discovery  and  occupation. 
But  if  we  wish  to  acquire  Texas  without  making  war  or 
relying  upon  discovery,  we  must  fall  back  upon  the  power  to 
admit  new  States,  and  acquire  the  territory  by  act  of  Con 
gress,  as  one  of  the  necessary  and  indispensable  means  of 
executing  that  enumerated  power.  Our  federal  system  is 
admirably  adapted  to  the  whole  continent ;  and  while  I 
would  not  violate  the  laws  of  nations,  nor  treaty  stipulations, 
nor  in  any  manner  tarnish  the  national  honor,  I  would  exert 
all  legal  and  honorable  means  to  drive  Great  Britain,  and  the 
last  vestiges  of  royal  authority,  from  the  continent  of  North 
America,  and  extend  the  limits  of  the  Republic  from  ocean 
to  ocean.  I  would  make  tlnVan  ocean-bound  republic,  and 
have  no  more  disputes  about  boundaries  or  red  lines  upon 
maps." 

The  treaty  for  the  annexation  of  Texas  having  failed  in 
the  Senate,  Mr.  Douglas,  among  others,  introduced  joint 
resolutions  in  the  House  of  Representatives  for  the  annexa 
tion  of  Texas  to  the  United  States ;  and  at  the  next  session, 
being  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Territories,  reported 
the  bill  by  which  Texas  was  declared  one  of  the  States 


3$  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

of  the  Union,  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original  States. 
In  this  joint  resolution  there  was  inserted,  at  the  instance 
of  Mr.  Douglas,  a  provision  extending  the  Missouri  Com 
promise  line  westward  through  Texas  to  the  Rio  del 
Norte,  its  western  boundary.  The  reasons  which  induced 
Mr.  Douglas  to  bring  forward  that  provision  are  explained 
by  him  in  his  speech  on  the  Nebraska  Territory,  delivered 
January  30,  1854,  and  which  will  be  found  in  a  subsequent 
chapter  of  this  work. 

The  joint  resolution  as  passed  is  as  follows : 


JOINT     RESOLUTION    FOK     ANNEXING     TEXAS    TO    THE    UNITED 

STATES. 

"  Retolwd,  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  in  Congress  Assembled,  That  Congress  doth  consent  that  the  terri 
tory  properly  included  within,  and  rightfully  belonging  to,  the  Kepublic  of 
Texas,  may  be  erected  into  a  new  State,  to  be  called  the  State  of  Texas, 
with  a  Republican  form  of  government,  to  be  adopted  by  the  people  of 
said  Republic,  by  deputies  in  convention  assembled,  with  the  consent  of 
the  existing  government,  in  order  that  the  same  may  be  admitted  as  one 
of  the  States  of  this  Union. 

"  SEC.  2.  And  be  it  further  resolved,  That  the  foregoing  consent  of  Con 
gress  is  given  upon  the  following  conditions,  and  with  the  following  guar 
unties,  to  wit : 

"  First,  Said  State  to  be  formed,  subject  to  the  adjustment  by  this  gov 
ernment  of  all  questions  of  boundary  that  may  arise  with  other  govern 
ments  ;  and  of  the  constitution  thereof,  with  the  proper  evidence  of  its 
adoption  by  the  people  of  said  Republic  of  Texas,  shall  be  transmitted  to 
the  President  of  the  United  States,  to  be  laid  before  Congress  for  its  final 
action,  on  or  before  the  first  day  of  January,  one  thousand  eight  hundred 
and  forty -six. 

"  Second,  Said  State,  when  admitted  into  the  Union,  after  ceding  to  the 
United  States  all  public  edifices,  fortifications,  barracks,  ports,  and  har 
bors,  navy  and  navy-yards,  docks,  magazines,  arms,  armaments,  and  all 
other  property  and  means  pertaining  to  the  public  defence,  belonging  to 
the  said  Republic  of  Texas,  shall  retain  all  the  public  funds,  debts,  taxes, 
and  dues  of  every  kind  which  may  belong  to,  or  be  due  or  owing  said 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  33 

.Republic;  and  shall  also  retain  all  the  vacant  or  unappropriated  laads 
lying  within  its  limits,  to,  be  applied  to  the  payment  of  tho  debts  and 
liabilities  of  said  Republic  of  Texas  ;  and  the  residue  of  said  lands,  after 
discharging  said  debts  and  liabilities,  to  become  a  charge  upon  the  United 
States. 

"  Third,  New  States  of  convenient  size,  not  exceeding  four  in  number, 
in  addition  to  the  said  State  of  Texas,  and  having  sufficient  population, 
may  hereafter,  by  the  consent  of  said  State,  be  formed  out  of  the  territory 
thereof,  which  shall  be  entitled  to  admission  under  the  provision  of  the 
Federal  Constitution;  and  such  States  as  may  be  formed  out  of  that  por 
tion  of  said  territory  lying  south  of  thirty-six  degrees  thirty  minutes, 
north  latitude,  commonly  known  as  the  Missouri  Compromise  line,  shall  be 
admitted  into  the  Union  with  or  without  Slavery,  as  the  people  of  each 
State  asking  admission  may  desire.  And  in  such  State  or  States  as  shall 
be  formed  out  of  said  territory  north  of  said  Missouri  Compromise  line, 
Slavery  or  involuntary  servitude  (except  for  crime)  shall  be  prohibited. 

[WALKER'S  AMENDMENT — ADDED.] 

11  And  be  it  further  resolved,  That  if  the  President  of  the  United  States 
shall,  in  his  judgment  and  discretion,  deem  it  most  advisable,  instead  of 
proceeding  to  submit  the  foregoing  resolution  to  the  Republic  of  Texas, 
as  an  overture  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  for  admission,  to  negoti 
ate  with  that  Republic ;  then, 

"  Be  it  resolved,  That  a  State  to  be  formed  out  of  the  present  Republic 
of  Texas,  with  suitable  extent  and  boundaries,  and  with  two  representa 
tives  in  Congress,  until  the  next  apportionment  of  representation,  shall  be 
admitted  into  the  Union  by  virtue  of  this  act,  on  an  equal  footing  with 
the  existing  States,  as  soon  as  the  terms  and  conditions  of  such  admission, 
and  the  cession  of  the  remaining  Texan  territory  to  the  United  States, 
shall  be  agreed  upon  by  the  Governments  of  Texas  and  the  Un'led  States. 

"  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  the  sum  of  one  hundred  tho-.^and  dol 
lars  be,  and  the  same  is  hereby,  appropriated  to  defray  the  expenses  of 
missions  and  negotiations,  to  agree  upon  the  terms  of  said  admission  and 
cession,  either  by  treaty  to  be  submitted  to  the  Senate,  or  by  articles  to 
be  submitted  1o  the  two  Houses  of  Congress,  as  the  President  may  diru-.t. 

"Approved,  March  2,  1845." 


34:  THE     LIFE     AND      SPEECHES     OF 


CHAPTER  V. 

WAR     WITH     MEXICO. 

Speech  in  Vindication  of  the  Administration — Mr.  Douglas  elected  to  Con 
gress  a  third  time. 

MR.  DOUGLAS  vigorously  supported  the  administration  of 
President  Polk,  in  the  measures  it  adopted  for  the  prosecu 
tion  of  the  war  against  Mexico;  and  on  the  13th  of  May, 
1846,  made  a  long  and  able  speech  in  favor  of  the  bill  making 
appropriations  for  the  support  of  the  army.  The  object  of 
this  speech  was  to  vindicate  our  government,  and  to  demon 
strate  that  it  had  not  been  in  the  wrong,  in  the  origin  and 
progress  of  «the  war.  It  will  be  remembered  that  the  war 
was  denounced  by  the  Whig  party  as  unholy  and  damnable, 
and  the  government  of  the  United  States  was  vilified  and 
traduced  without  measure,  for  taking  the  only  course  that 
could  be  taken,  in  order  to  preserve  the  national  honor. 
Henry  Clay,  the  great  leader  of  the  Whigs,  did  not,  indeed, 
join  in  this  shameful  cry.  His  eldest  son,  Henry  Clay,  jr., 
fought  gallantly  in  the  war,  and  fell  at  Buena  Vista :  and  tjie 
old  patriot  was  net  one  of  those  who  gave  aid  and  comfort  to 
the  enemy.  But  Thomas  Corwin,  and  others  like  him,  de 
clared  in  Congress  that  while  the  President  could  command 
the  army,  they  thanked  heaven  that  they  could  command  the 
purse,  and  that  he  should  have  no  funds  to  prosecute  this 
war ;  and  called  upon  the  Mexicans  to  welcome  the  soldiers 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  35 

of  the  American  army,  with  "  bloody  hands  and  hospitable 
graves !" 

In  reply  to  this,  Mr.  Douglas  presented  a  mass  of  evidence 
from  official  documents,  showing  that  for  years  past  we  had 
had  ample  cause  for  war  against  Mexico,  and  quoting  the. 
declaration  of  President  Jackson's  last  special  message,  that 
the  wanton  character  of  the  outrages  upon  the  persons  and 
property  of  our  citizens,  upon  the  officers  and  flag  of  the 
United  States,  independent  of  recent  insults  to  this  govern 
ment  and  people,  would  justify  in  the  eyes  of  nations,  imme 
diate  war. 

•  MEXICAN   OUTRAGES. 

"Aside  from  the  insults  to  our  flag,"  said  Mr.  Douglas, 
"  the  indignity  to  the  nation,  and  the  injury  to  our  commerce, 
not  less  than  ten  millions  of  dollars  are  due  to  our  citizens, 
for  these  outrages  which  Mexico  has  committed  within  the 
last  fifteen  years.  The  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  of 
the  U.  S.  Senate,  said  in  their  report  in  1837,  that  they  might 
'  with  justice  recommend  an  immediate  resort  to  war  or  re 
prisals  ;'  and  the  House  Committee,  at  the  same  session,  re 
ported  that  *  the  merchant  vessels  of  the  United  States  have 
been  fired  into,  and  our  citizens  put  to  death.'  It  should  be 
borne  in  mind  that  all  those  insults  and  injuries  were  com 
mitted  before  the  annexation  of  Texas — before  the  proposi 
tion  of  annexation  was  ever  seriously  entertained  by  this 
government.  For  offences  much  less  aggravated,  France 
made  her  demand  for  reparation,  and  proclaimed  her  ultima 
tum  from  the  deck  of  a  man-of-war  off  Vera  Cruz.  Redress 
being  denied,  the  French  fleet  opened  their  batteries  on  the 
Castle  of  San  Juan  de  Ulloa,  compelled  the  fortress  to  sur 
render,  and  the  Mexican  government  to  accede  to  their  de 
mands,  and  to  pay  $200,000  in  addition,  to  defray  the  expenses 
of  enforcing  the  payment  of  the  claim.  Our  wrongs  aro  ten 


36  THE     LIFE     AND      SPEECHES     OF 

fold  greater  than  those  of  France,  in  number  and  enormity; 
yet  her  complaints  have  been  heard  in  tones  of  thunder  from 
the  mouths  of  her  cannon. 

"When  the  question  of  annexation  was  recently  agitated, 
Mexico  gave  notice  to  this  government  that  she  would  regard 
the  consummation  of  the  measure  as  a  declaration  of  war. 
She  made  the  passage  of  the  resolution  of  annexation  the  pre 
text  for  dissolving  the  diplomatic  relations  between  the  two 
countries." 

HOUSTON'S  TREATY  WITH  SANTA  ANNA. 

Mr.  Douglas  then  briefly  related  the  facts  relative  to  Mr. 
Slidell's  appointment  as  minister  to  Mexico,  the  contemp 
tuous  reception  that  he  met  with  there,  and  his  final  rejection 
by  the  government  of  Paredes  ;  and  also  gave  a  brief  sketch 
of  the  early  military  operations  on  both  sides.  J5y  references 
to  the  documentary  archives  of  the  government,  he  proved 
that  the  Rio  Grande  was  the  western  boundary  of  Texas,  and 
cited  the  fact  that  immediately  after  the  battle  of  San  Ja- 
cinto,  Santa  Anna  proposed  to  General  Sam  Houston,  com 
mander  of  the  Texan  army,  to  make  a  treaty  of  peace  by 
which  Mexico  would  recognize  the  independence  of  Texas 
with  the  Rio  del  Norte  as  the  boundary,  and  that  such  a 
treaty  wTas  made,  in  which  the  independence  of  Texas  was 
acknowledged  by  the  government  de  facto  of  Mexico,  and 
the  Rio  del  JsToute  recognized  as  the  boundary.  He  showed 
that  according  to  the  well-established  principles  of  interna 
tional  law,  the  acts  of  the  government  de  facto  are  binding 
on  that  nation  in  respect  to  foreign  states  :  and  concluded  by 
a  defence  of  the  course  pursued  by  President  Polk,  in  order 
ing  General  Taylor  to  occupy  with  his  forces  territory  that 
was  as  much  ours  as  Florida  or  Massachusetts. 

Mr.  Douglas  was  prominent  among  those  who,  in  the  Ore 
gon  controversy  with  Great  Britain,  maintained  that  our 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  37 

title  to  the  whole  of  Oregon  was  clear  and  unquestionable. 
He  declared  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  that  he  would 
never,  now  or  hereafter,  yield  up  one  inch  of  Oregon,  either 
to  Great  Britain  or  to  any  other  foreign  government.  He 
advocated  the  policy  of  giving  notice  to  Great  Britain  to  ter 
minate  the  joint  occupation;  of  establishing  a  territorial 
government  over  Oregon,  protected  by  a  sufficient  military 
force ;  and  of  putting  the  country  at  once  into  a  state  of  pre 
paration,  so  that  if  war  should  result  from  the  assertion  of  our 
just  rights,  we  might  drive  Great  Britain  and  the  last  vestige 
of  royal  authority  from  the  continent  of  North  America. 


38  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES      OF 


CHAPTER   VI. 

THE    WAR    WITH    MEXICO  I/l 847-1 848. 

Mr.  Douglas  Elected  to  the  United  States  Senate — He  opposes  the  Wllmot 
Proviso — Speech  on  the  Ten  Regiment  Bill — Bill  for  the  Establishment 
of  the  Territory  of  Nebraska — Pass  to  Gen.  Santa  Anna— Exertions  of 
Mr.  Douglas  in  procuring  Grants  of  Land  to  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad 
— He  endeavors  to  extend  the  Missouri  Compromise  Line  to  the  Pacific 
Ocean — The  Design  defeated  by  Northern  Votes — Bill  for  the  Admission 
of  California — Indian  Titles  in  the  Northwest — Protection  to  Emigrants. 

THE    WILMOT    PROVISO. 

MR.  DOUGLAS  had  been  reflected  to  Congress  in  1846  ;  but 
before  Congress  met,  the  legislature  of  the  State  of  Illinois 
elected  him  a  senator  for  six  years  from  the  4th  of  March. 
1847. 

So  far  as  the  question  of  slavery  was  involved  in  the  orga 
nization  of  territories  and  the  admission  of  new  States,  Mr. 
Douglas  early  took  the  position  that  Congress  ought  not  to 
interfere  on  either  side  ;  but  that  the  people  of  each  Terri 
tory  and  State  should  be  allowed  to  form  and  regulate  their 
domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way.  In  accordance  with 
this  principle,  he  opposed  the  Wilmot  Proviso  whenever  it 
was  brought  up. 

SPEECH    OX   THE   TEX    REGIMENT   BILL. 

On  the  30th  of  January,  1848,  Mr.  Douglas  made  a  speech  in 
the  Senate  on  the  Ten  Regiment  Bill,  which  provided  for  the 


STEP  II  EN     A.     DOUGLAS.  39 

raising,  for  a  limited  time,  of  an  additional  military  force.  In 
this  speech,  Mr.  Douglas  alluded  to  the  fact  that  the  war  with 
Mexico  had  been  in  progress  nearly  two  years.  The  campaign 
of  1846  had  resulted  in  the  most  brilliant  victories  that  ever 
adorned  the  annals  of  any  nation.  The  States  of  California, 
New  Mexico,  Chihuahua,  New  Leon,  and  Tamaulipas,  besides 
many  towns  and  cities  in  other  Mexican  States,  had  been  one 
after  another  reduced  to  our  possession.  After  a  defence 
of  President  Polk  from  the  charge  of  changing  his  grounds 
in  regard  to  the  causes  of  the  war  and  the  objects  of  prose 
cuting  it,  he  showed  that  the  war  was  not  one  of  conquest, 
but  of  self-defence  forced  on  us  by  Mexico ;  and  that  the 
declaration  of  the  President,  that  the  first  blood  of  the  war 
was  "  American  blood  shed  upon  American  soil,"  was  the 
simple  truth.  "  That  in  order  to  compel  Mexico  to  do  us  jus 
tice,  it  was  necessary  to  follow  her  armies  into  her  territory,  to 
take  possession  of  State  after  State,  and  hold  them  until  she 
would  yield  to  our  reasonable  demands.  Indemnity  for  the 
past,  and  security  for  the  future,  was  the  motive  of  the  war." 
When  Mr.  Douglas  rose  to  make  this  speech,  his  desk  was 
piled  with  original  Mexican  documents,  all  official,  from 
which  he  proved  that  the  Rio  Grande  always  was  the  western 
boundary  of  Texas.  After  first  defeating  the  Mexicans,  the 
Texans  on  the  2<I  of  November,  1836,  adopted  a  declaration 
of  independence,  and  on  17th  published  their  constitution. 
In  both  of  these  documents,  the  Rio  Grande  was  stated  as  the 
boundary.  After  the  memorable  victory  of  San  Jacinto,  on 
the  21st  of  April  following,  a  treaty  was  made  and  ratified 
May  12th,  between  Santa  Anna  on  the  part  of  the  Mexican 
government,  and  Gen.  Houston  on  the  part  of  Texas,  which 
prescribed  the  boundary  of  Texas,  the  Rio  Grande  being  the 
western  line. 

Mr.  Douglas  then  proceeded  to  show  that  the  war  had 
been  commenced  by  the  act  of  Mexico,  and  eited  the  official 


40  THE     LIFE     AND      SPEECHES      OF 

instructions  from  President  Paredes  to  the  Mexican  genera) 
commanding  on  the  right  bank  of  the  Rio  Grande,  in  which 
he  says,  April,  18,  184G,  "It  is  indispensable  that  hostilities 
be  commenced,  yourself  taking  the  initiative  against  the 
enemy."  In  closing  this  speech,  Mr.  Douglas  paid  a  glowing 
tribute  to  the  volunteers  who  had  so  gallantly  rushed  to  the 
standard  of  their  country,  and  especially  to  the  7,000  volun 
teers  from  Illinois. 

PASS   TO    SANTA   ANNA. 

Gen.  Santa  Anna  had  been  an  exile  from  his  country  when 
the  Mexican  War  began  ;  and,  desiring  to  return  to  Mexico, 
he  was  permitted  to  pass  through  our  squadron.  This  was 
done  in  pursuance  of  orders  from  the  War  Department  to 
the  commander  of  our  fleet  in  the  Gulf  of  Mexico.  The 
Government  was  violently  assailed  for  having  permitted  this ; 
Mr.  Clayton  of  Delaware  having  charged  the  President,  by 
giving  this  pass  to  Santa  Anna,  with  being  guilty  of  a  blunder 
worse  than  a  crime.  On  the  17th  of  March,  Mr.  Douglas,  in 
a  brief,  but  comprehensive  speech,  defended  the  policy  of  the 
administration  in  this  matter,  and  showed  that  the  admission 
of  Santa  Anna,  so  far  from  being  a  blunder,  was  a  wise  and 
politic  measure.  The  results  of  the  war  proved  that  he  was 
right,  and  that  Mr.  Clayton  was  mistaken. 


ILLINOIS    CENTRAL   KAILROAD. 

The  bill  granting  to  the  State  of  Illinois  the  right  of  way 
through  the  lands  of  the  United  States,  which  had  been 
originally  introduced  into  the  Senate  by  Mr.  Douglas, 
April  10,  1848,  was  passed  on  the  31st  of  May  :  the  measure 
owing  its  success  mainly  to  his  exertions.  The  object  of  the 
bill  was  to  construct  a  railroad  connecting  Chicago  and  the 


STEP  II  EN     A.     DOUGLAS.  41 

great  lakes  of  the  K"orth,  with  the  Mississippi  River  at 
Cairo.  The  road  was  built,  and  it  has  proved  to  be  of  incal 
culable  benefit,  not  only  to  the  State  of  Illinois,  but  to  the 
whole  country. 

In  the  debate  on  the  bill,  Mr.  Douglas  explained  that  the 
proposed  road  was  to  be  the  entire  length  of  the  State  from 
north  to  south,  not  far  from  400  miles.  The  bill  proposed 
to  grant  the  land  in  alternate  sections,  increasing  the  price 
of  the  other  sections  to  double  the  minimum  price.  It  was  fol 
lowing  the  same  system  that  had  been  adopted  in  reference  U 
improvements  of  a  similar  character  in  Ohio,  Indiana,  Alabama, 
Iowa,  and  Wisconsin,  by  wrhich  principle  each  alternate 
section  of  land  was  ceded,  and  the  price  of  the  alternate 
sections  not  ceded  was  doubled,  so  that  the  same  price  is  re 
ceived  for  the  whole.  These  lands  had  been  in  the  market 
about  twenty-three  years  ;  but  they  would  not  sell  at  the  usual 
price  of  $1  25  per  acre,  because  they  were  distant  from  any- 
navigable  stream.  A  railroad  would  make  the  lands  salable 
at  double  the  usual  price.  The  road  was  begun  by  tho 
State  of  Illinois  in  1836,  and  about  a  million  of  dollars  were 
expended  upon  it  by  the  State.  With  the  exception  of  the 
county  at  the  northern  end  of  the  road,  more  than  one-hal  f 
of  the  whole  of  the  lands  along  the  line  were  then  vacant ; 
in  most  of  the  counties,  it  was  so.  Around  the  towns  the 
land  was  all  taken  up  and  cultivated,  but  there  were  large 
prairies  where  the  land  was  in  all  its  original  wildness. 

ITS    BENEFIT   TO    ILLINOIS. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  this  was  twelve  years  ago. 
Illinois  twelve  years  ago  was  very  different  from  the  Illinois 
of  to-day.  There  was  then  not  a  single  mile  of  railroad  in 
the  State;  and  the  greater  part  of  the  line  of  the  proposed 
railroad  passed  for  miles  and  miles  without  coming  in  sight 


42  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES      OF 

of  a  house,  or  any  other  indication  of  civilized  life.  What  a 
contrast  now !  The  proposed  road  built,  known  even  in 
Europe  as  one  of  the  most  prosperous  in  America ;  other 
railroads  crossing  it  in  all  directions  ;  the  reserved  alternate 
sections  of  land  nearly  all  sold,  at  prices  ranging  from  two 
dollars  and  a  half  to  seven  and  a  quarter  per  acre,  thus  yield 
ing  to  the  government  a  much  larger  sum  for  one  half  than 
was  before  asked  for  the  whole;  the  whole  of  the  soil  of 
Illinois,  acknowledged  to  be  the  richest  in  the  world,  re 
deemed  from  its  primitive  wildness,  blooming  and  blossoming 
like  a  garden,  and  teeming  with  abundant  harvests  ;  a  mar 
ket  brought  to  every  former's  door ;  and  this  prosperity 
owing  its  origin  and  material  progress  to  the  exertions  01 
Mr.  Douglas  in  securing  the  passage  of  this  bill. 

It  is  but  an  act  of  simple  justice  to  those  illustrious  states 
men  to   add,   that   JoliH   C.  Calhoun,  Henry  Clay,  Danie 
Webster,  Thomas  H.  Benton,  and  Lewis  Cass,  seconded  thfc 
efforts  of  Mr.  Douglas  by  able  and  eloquent  speeches  in 
favor  of  this  great  measure. 

MISSOURI    COMPROMISE    PtEPUDIATED. 

In  August,  1848,  Mr.  Douglas  offered  an  amendment  to 
the  Oregon  Bill,  extending  the  Missouri  Compromise  line 
to  the  Pacific  Ocean,  in  the  same  sense  and  with  the  same 
understanding  with  which  it  was  originally  adopted  in  1820, 
and  extended  through  Texas  in  1845.  The  amendment  was 
adopted  in  the  Senate,  but  was  rejected  in  the  House  of 
Representatives  by  northern  votes. 

It  is  important  to  mark  well  this  fact.  The  first  time  that 
the  principles  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  were  even  aban 
doned,  the  first  time  they  were  ever  rejected  by  Congress, 
was  by  the  defeat  of  that  provision  in  the  House  of  Repre 
sentatives,  in  1848.  That  defeat  was  effected  by  northern 


STEP  II  EN     A.     DOUGLAS.  43 

votes  with  Freesoil  proclivities.  It  was  that  defeat  which 
reopened  the  slavery  agitation  in  all  its  fury,  and  caused  the 
tremendous  straggle  of  1850.  It  was  that  defeat  which  cre 
ated  the  necessity  for  making  a  new  compromise  in  1850. 
Who  caused  that  defeat  ?  Who  was  faithless  to  the  prin 
ciples  of  the  compromise  of  1820?  It  was  the  very  men 
who  in  1854,  insisted  that  the  Missouri  Compromise  was  a 
solemn  compact  that  ought  never  to  be  violated.  The  very 
men  who,  in  1854,  arraigned  Mr.  Douglas  for  a  departure 
from  the  Missouri  Compromise,  were  the  men  who  success 
fully  violated  it,  repudiated  it,  and  caused  it  to  be  super 
seded. 

CALIFORNIA,    INDIAN   TITLES,    ETC. 

By  the  time  the  next  session  of  Congress  assembled,  Cali 
fornia  had  been  settled  by  an  enterprising  people,  whose 
numbers  entitled  them  to  admission  into  the  Union  as  a  State. 
A  bill  "  for  the  admission  of  California  as  a  State  into  the 
Union,"  was  introduced  by  Mr.  Douglas  on  the  29th  of  Jan 
uary,  1849  ;  but  was  not  acted  on  till  long  afterward. 

On  the  18th  of  December,  1849,  Mr.  Douglas  was  reflected 
chairman  of  the  Senate  Committee  on  Territories,  by  33  out 
of  40  votes;  a  position  to  which  he  was  constantly  thereafter 
reflected,  until  December,  1858. 

The  tribes  of  Indians  which  had,  until  a  few  years  before, 
occupied  the  lands  in  Minnesota,  Oregon,  California,  and.  "NTew 
Mexico,  had  never  been  fully  divested  of  their  title  to  the 
same  ;  and  their  constant  presence  there,  and  their  depreda 
tions  on  the  settlers,  were  very  annoying ;  so  much  so  that  the 
settlement  of  those  new  Territories  was  much  impeded. 
In  order  to  remove  the  cause  of  all  the  trouble  at  once,  Mr. 
Douglas,  on  the  7th  of  January,  1850,  offered  a  resolution 
providing  for  the  complete  extinguishment  of  the  Indian 


44  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

title  in  the  Territories  above  named.  The  resolution  was 
debated  at  some  length,  but  it  was  adopted ;  and  the  mea« 
sures  proposed  have  been  faithfully  carried  out.  Ample 
provision  was  made  for  treating  the  Indians  with  fairness 
and  justice  :  and  while  their  rights  have  been  respected,  and 
their  comforts  secured,  the  vast  regions  which  they  occupied 
have  been  secured  for  all  time  to  come  for  the  abodes  of 
civilized  men  ;  and  for  the  spread  of  those  great  fundamental 
principles  on  which  our  national  prosperity  rests. 

At  the  time  that  Mr.  Douglas  introduced  his  resolution, 
however,  the  emigrants  to  those  Territories,  and  especially 
to  those  of  Oregon  and  California,  were  annoyed  and  at 
tacked  to  such  an  extent,  by  roving  bands  of  Indians,  that  it 
was  considered  positively  unsafe  for  emigrants  to  go  any 
further  west  than  the  Missouri  River.  It  was  clearly  the 
duty  of  the  Government  to  afford  protection  to  its  citizens 
on  its  own  soil ;  and  accordingly,  on  the  31st  of  January, 
Mr.  Douglas  offered  a  resolution,  instructing  the  committee 
on  military  affairs  to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  provid 
ing,  on  the  usual  emigrant  line  from  the  Missouri  River  to 
the  South  Pass  of  the  Rocky  Mountains,  a  sufficient  movable 
military  force  to  protect  all  emigrants  to  Oregon  and  Cali 
fornia. 

To  the  legislation  growing  out  of  this  resolution,  many 
hundreds  of  families  now  living  in  comfort  and  even  in  afflu 
ence  in  the  smiling  villages  of  Oregon,  California,  and  Min 
nesota,  are  indebted,  not  only  for  their  safety,  but  their  very 
lives.  The  instances  of  emigrant  trains  saved  from  the  at 
tack  and  spoliation  of  the  savages,  by  our  gallant  troops  on 
the  frontier,  from  1851  to  1857,  are  numerous  and  well 
authenticated.  The  settlers  in  those  new  countries  owe  a 
debt  of  gratitude  to  Mr.  Douglas  which  they  will  not  soon 
forget. 


STEPHEN      A.     DOUGLAS.  4:5 


CHAPTER  VII. 

COMPROMISE      OF      1850. 

Mr.  Douglas  supports  the  Compromise  Measures  of  Henry  Clay — Great 
Speech  on  the  13th  and  14th  of  March — Speech  in  favor  of  the  Omni 
bus  Bill,  June  3 — The  Nicholson  Letter  of  General  Cass — Mr.  Douglas 
returns  to  Chicago — He  is  Denounced  by  the  Local  Authorities — 
He  beards  the  Lions  in  their  Den— Speech  to  the  Citizens  of  Chicago — 
Its  Effect. 

WHEN  the  Compromise  measures  of  Mr.  Clay  were 
brought  forward  in  1850,  Mr.  Douglas  supported  them  with 
zeal  and  vigor.  On  the  13th  and  14th  of  March,  he  deli 
vered  a  speech  on  the  general  territorial  questions,  which  has 
scarcely  been  surpassed  by  any  of  his  subsequent  efforts.  It 
was  by  far  the  ablest  speech  that  had  ever  been  delivered  in 
the  Senate  by  any  western  man.  It  was  in  this  speech  that 
Judge  Douglas  first  enunciated  the  doctrine  of  which  he  has 
ever  since  been  the  most  distinguished  advocate,  that  it  is 
the  true  Democratic  principle  in  reference  to  the  Territories, 
that  each  one  shall  be  left  to  regulate  its  own  local  and  do 
mestic  aifairs  in  its  own  way. 

In  the  beginning  of  this  great  speech,  Senator  Douglas 
showed  that  all  the  acts  of  the  Tyler  administration  in  refer- 
,nce  to  the  annexation  of  Texas  (including  the  proposed 
treaty  with  Mexico  for  that  object,  and  the  correspondence 
between  our  secretary  of  state  on  the  one  part,  and  Mr, 
King,  minister  to  France  and  Mr.  Murphy,  charge  d'affaires 


4:6  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

in  the  republic  of  Texas,  on  the  other  part),  had  been  indig 
nantly  and  contemptuously  rejected  by  the  Senate  ;  and  that 
this  had  been  done  in  order  to  repudiate  and  rebuke  the  ad 
ministration  of  Mr  Tyler,  and  in  order  that  the  Democratic 
party  might  come  to  the  support  of  the  annexation  of  Texas 
as  they  did  come,  and  consummated  the  annexation  upon 
broad,  national  grounds,  elevated  far  above  and  totally  dis 
connected  from  the  question  of  slavery. 


ORDINANCE    OF    1787    HAD   NO    EFFECT    ON   SLAVERY. 

A  distinguished  southern  senator  having  said  that  the 
South  had  been  deprived  of  its'  due  share  of  the  territories, 
Mr.  Douglas  responded,  "  What  share  had  the  South  in  the 
territories  ?  or  the  Xorth  ?  I  answer,  none  at  all.  The  ter 
ritories  belong  to  the  United  States  as  one  people,  and  are  to 
be  disposed  of  for  the  common  benefit  of  all,  according  to 
the  principles  of  the  Constitution.  "No  geographical  section 
of  the  Union  is  entitled  to  any  share  of  the  territories. 
What  becomes  of  the  complaint  of  the  senator,  that  the 
Ordinance  of  1787  excluded  the  South  entirely  from  that 
vast  fertile  region  between  the  Ohio  and  the  Mississippi  ? 
That  ordinance  was  a  dead  letter.  It  did  not  make  the  coun 
try  to  which  it  applied,  free  from  slavery.  The  States  formed 
out  of  the  territory  northwest  of  the  Ohio,  did  not  become 
free  by  virtue  of  the  Ordinance,  nor  in  consequence  of  it. 
Those  States  became  free  by  virtue  of  their  own  will,  re 
corded  in  the  fundamental  laws  of  their  own  making.  That 
is  the  source  of  their  freedom.  In  all  republican  states,  laws 
and  ordinances  are  mere  nullities,  unless  sustained  by  the 
hearts  and  intellects  of  the  people  for  whom  they  are  made, 
and  by  whom  they  are  to  be  executed. 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  47 


SLAVES   IN    ILLINCIS. 

"The  Ordinance  of  1787  did  the  South  no  harm,  and  thfc 
North  no  good.  Illinois,  for  instance,  was  a  slave  territory. 
Even  in  1840,  there  were  331  slaves  in  Illinois.  How  came 
these  slaves  in  Illinois  ?  They  were  taken  there  under  the 
Ordinance,  and  in  defiance  of  it.  The  people  of  Illinois, 
while  it  was  a  territory,  were  mostly  emigrants  from  the 
slaveholding  States.  But  when  their  convention  assembled 
at  Kaskaskia  in  1818,  to  form  the  constitution  of  the  State 
of  Illinois,  although  it  was  composed  of  slaveholders,  yet  they 
had  become  satisfied,  from  experience,  that  the  climate  and 
productions  of  Illinois  were  unfavorable  to  slave  labor.  They 
accordingly  made  provision  for  a  gradual  system  of  emanci 
pation,  by  which  the  State  should  become  eventually  free. 
These  facts  show  that  the  Ordinance  had  no  practical  effect 
upon  slavery.  Slavery  existed  under  the  Ordinance  ;  and 
since  the  Ordinance  has  been  suspended  by  the  State  govern 
ments,  slavery  has  gradually  disappeared  .under  the  operation 
of  laws  adopted  and  executed  by  the  people  themselves.  A 
law  passed  by  the  national  legislature  to  operate  locally  upon 
a  people  not  represented,  will  always  remain  a  dead  letter,  if 
it  be  in  opposition  to  the  wishes  and  interests  of  those  who 
are  to  be  affected  by  it. 

"  In  regard  to  the  effects  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  on 
the  question  of  slavery,  I  do  not  think  that  it  had  any  prac 
tical  effect  on  that  question,  one  way  or  another  :  it  neither 
curtailed  nor  extended  slavery  one  inch." 

A    GLANCE    AT   THE    FUTUKE. 

"  We  recognize  the  right  of  the  South,  in  common  with 
our  right,  to  emigrate  to  the  Territories  with  their  property, 


48  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES      OF 

niid  there  hold  and  enjoy  it  in  subordination  to  the  laws  in 
force  there.  The  senator  from  South  Carolina  desires  such 
an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  as  shall  stipulate  that  in 
all  time  to  come,  there  shall  be  as  many  slaveholding  States 
in  the  Union  as  there  are  States  without  slaves.  The  adop 
tion  and  execution  of  such  a  provision  would  be  an  impossi 
bility.  We  have  a  vrast  territory  which  is  filling  up  with  an 
industrious  and  enterprising  population,  large  enough  to 
form  seventeen  new  States,  one-half  of  which  we  may  expect 
to  see  represented  in  this  body  during  our  day.  Of  these, 
four  will  be  formed  out  of  Oregon,  five  out  of  our  late  acqui 
sition  from  Mexico,  including  the  present  State  of  California, 
and  two  out  of  Minnesota.  Each  of  these  will  be  free  Terri 
tories  and  free  State's,  whether  Congress  shall  prohibit  slavery 
in  them  or  not.  Where  are  you  to  find  the  slave  territory 
with  which  to  balance  these  seventeen  free  Territories  ?  In 
Texas  ?  If  Texas  should  be  divided  into  five  States,  at  least 
three  of  them  will^in  all  probability  be  free." 


ADMISSION    OF    CALIFOENIA. 

Mr.  Douglas  then  proceeded  to  advocate,  at  great  length, 
the  immediate  admission  of  the  State  of  California  under 
her  constitution  ;  and  concluded  his  speech  by  declaring  that 
"  this  nation  owes  to  the  venerable  senator  from  Kentucky 
(Mr.  Clay)  a  debt  of  gratitude  for  his  services  to  the  Union 
on  this  occasion.  The  purity  of  his  motives  cannot  be 
doubted.  He  has  set  the  ball  in  motion  which  is  to  restore 
peace  and  harmony  to  the  Union." 

THE    OMNIBUS    BILL. 

On  the  3d  of  June,  1850,  Mr.  Douglas  spoke  in  favor  of 
the  Omnibus  Bill,  and  in  the  course  of  his  remarks  said :  "  In 


STEPHEN     A.DOUGLAS.  49 

respect  to  African  slavery,  the  position  that  I  have  ever 
taken  has  been,  that  this,  and  all  other  questions  relating  to 
the  domestic  affairs  and  domestic  policy  of  the  Territories, 
ought  to  be  left  to  the  decision  of  the  people  themselves.  I 
would  therefore  have  much  preferred  that  the  bill  should 
have  remained  as  it  was  reported  from  the  Committee  on  Ter 
ritories,  with  no  provision  on  the  subject  of  slavery;  and  I 
do  hope  that  that  clause  in  the  bill  will  be  stricken  out.  It 
ought  not  to  be  there,  because  it  is  a  violation  of  principle 
I  do  not  see  how  we  who  have  argued  in  favor  of  the  right 
of  the  people  to  legislate  for  themselves  on  this  question,  can 
support  such  a  provision  without  abandoning  all  the  argu 
ments  which  we  urged  in  the  Presidential  campaign  of  1848, 
and  the  principles  set  forth  by  the  senator  from  Michigan  in 
the  Nicholson  letter. 

"And,  sir,  is  an  institution  to  be  fixed  upon  a  people  in 
opposition  to  their  unanimous  opinion  ?  I,  for  one,  think 
that  such  ought  not  to  be  the  case.  I  desire  no  provision 
whatever  in  respect  to  slavery  in  the  Territories.  I  wish  to 
leave  the  people  of  the  Territories  free  to  enact  such  laws  as 
they  please.  But  on  this  one  point,  I  am  not  left  to  follow 
my  own  judgment,  nor  my  own  desire.  I  am  to  express  the 
will  of  my  constituents.  My  vote  will  be  in  accordance  with 
their  instructions." 

We  give,  in  a  subsequent  part  of  this  work,  the  Nicholson 
letter  referred  to  by  Mr.  Douglas,  and  commend  it  to  the 
perusal  of  our  readers.  It  will  amply  repay  the  time  thus  spent. 

On  the  6th  of  June,  and  also  on  the  26th,  Mr.  Douglas  ad 
dressed  the  Senate  in  support  of  the  Compromise  measures. 

ABOLITIONISM   IX    CHICAGO. 

The  Compromise  measures  of  1850  having  been  adopted  by 
Congress,  and  that  body  having  adjourned,  Mr.  Douglas 

3 


50  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

proceeded  to  Chicago,  where  he  had  recently  purchased  pro 
perty,  with  a  view  of  making  that  city  his  permanent  resi 
dence.  It  is  a  well  known  fact  that  Chicago  has  always  been 
the  hot-bed  of  abolitionism,  and  a  prominent  station  on  the 
Underground  Railroad.  There  are  many  men  there  who 
have  never  bowed  the  knee  to  the  Baal  of  fanaticism  and 
treason,  but  the  majority  of  the  people  have  always  been 
abolitionists.  These  restless  beings  had  been  violently  op 
posed  to  the  Compromise  measures,  and  they  raised  a  storm 
of  execration  and  abuse  against  Mr.  Douglas,  because  he  had 
been  prominent  in  procuring  their  adoption.  The  excite 
ment  was  fierce  and  terrific.  A  venal  press,  and  pulpits  dis 
graced  by  crazy  fanatics,  joined  in  the  work  of  misrepresen 
tation,  abuse,  and  denunciation.  The  city  council  met,  and 
passed  resolutions  denouncing  the  Compromise  and  Fugitive 
Slave  Law  as  violations  of  the  law  of  God  and  the  Constitu 
tion  of  the  United  States  ;  enjoined  the  city  police  to  disre 
gard  the  law,  and  called  upon  the  citizens  not  to  obey  it. 
On  the  next  evening  a  meeting  was  held,  composed  of  twenty- 
five  hundred  citizens,  and  in  that  meeting,  in  the  midst  of 
terrific  applause,  it  was  determined  to  defy  "  death,  the  dun 
geon,  and  the  grave,"  in  resistance  to  the  execution  of  the 
law.  Mr.  Douglas  was  then  in  Chicago  :  he  knew  that  this 
meeting  was  to  take  place ;  and  he  knew,  from  the  character 
of  the  men  who  composed  it,  what  the  nature  of  the  resolu 
tions  would  be.  He  walked  into  the  meeting,  and  from  the 
stand  gave  notice  that  on  the  next  evening  he  would  appear 
there  and  defend  every  measure  of  the  Compromise,  and 
especially  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law,  from  every  objection :  and 
he  called  upon  the  entire  people  of  the  city  to  come  and  hear 
him.  The  announcement  was  made  in  the  midst  of  profound 
silence,  but  was  immediately  followed  by  a  storm  of  groans 
and  hisses.  Mr.  Douglas,  however,  calmly  stood  his  ground 
till  the  noise'  suicided,  and  then,  addressing  those  who  had 


STEPHEN     A.DOUGLAS.  51 

hissed  and  groaned,  told  them  that  he  was  right  and  they 
were  wrong,  and  that  if  they  would  come  and  hear  him  he 
would  prove  it  to  them. 

MR.    DOUGLAS    SPEAKS   LIST   CHICAGO. 

On  the  next  evening,  in  the  presence  of  4,000  people,  with 
the  city  council  and  abolitionists  in  front  of  the  stand,  which 
was  surrounded  in  the  rear  by  a  large  body  of  armed  negroes, 
including  many  fugitive  slaves,  Mr.  Douglas  made  a  speech 
in  which  he  vindicated  the  Compromise  measures  and  the 
Fugitive  Slave  Law,  and  proved  that  the  latter  was  both  neces 
sary  and  constitutional ;  and  he  answered  every  objection 
that  had  been  urged  against  them.  The  objections  relating 
to  the  right  of  trial  by  jury,  to  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  to 
records  from  other  States,  to  the  fees  of  the  commissioners,  to 
the  pains  and  penalties,  to  the  "higher  law" — every  objec 
tion  which  the  ingenuity  and  fanaticism  of  abolitionism  could 
invent,  was  brought  up  by  different  persons  in  the  meeting, 
and  fully  and  conclusively  answered  by  Mr.  Douglas.  What 
was  the  effect  of  that  speech  upon  that  meeting,  comprising 
three-fourths  of  all  the  legal  voters  of  the  city  of  Chicago  ? 
The  people  composing  that  meeting,  ajmajority  of  whom  had, 
the  nighji  previously,  pledged  themselves  to  open  and  violent 
resistance  to  the  law,  after  the  conclusion  of  the  speech  of 
Mr.  Douglas,  unanimously  adopted  a  series  of  resolutions  in 
favor  of  sustaining  and  carrying  into  effect  every  provision 
of  the  Constitution  and  laws  in  respect  to  the  surrender  of 
fugitive  slaves.  The  resolutions  were  written,  and  submitted 
to  the  meeting  by  Mr.  Douglas,  and  cover  the  entire  ground. 
The  city  council  having  nullified  the  law  and  denounced 
Mr.  Douglas  as  a  traitor,  the  Hon.  Buckner  S.  Morris  offered 
the  following  resolution,  which  was  also  adopted  :  "Resolved, 
That  we,  the  people  of  Chicago,  repudiate  the  resolutions 


52  THE     LIFE     AND      SPEECHES      OF 

recently  passed  by  the  Common  Council  of  Chicago  upon  the 
subject  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law." 

EFFECT    OF   THE    SPEECH. 

On  the  following  evening,  the  city  council  met  again,  and 
repealed  their  nullifying  resolutions  by  a  vote  of  twelve 
to  one. 

This  speech  of  Mr.  Douglas  was  the  first  one  ever  made  in 
a  free  State  in  defence  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law,  and  that 
Chicago  meeting  was  the  first  public  assemblage  in  any  free 
State  that  determined  to  support  and  sustain  it.  In  the  very 
nest  of  rebellion  and  treason,  the  rebels  and  traitors  received 
their  first  check  :  the  fanatical  spirit  was  rebuked,  and  the 
supremacy  of  the  Constitution  and  laws  asserted  and  main 
tained.  Such  is  the  power  of  eloquence  and  the  force  of 
truth,  even  in  modern  times. 

In  the  Appendix  to  this  work,  will  be  found  the  two 
documents  referred  to  by  Senator  Douglas  in  his  speech  of 
the  13th  and  14th  of  March,  1850;  namely,  the  official  dis 
patch  of  John  C.  Calhoun,  secretary  of  state  under  John 
Tyler,  to  the  Hon.  Wm.  R.  King,  our  ambassador  to  Paris : 
and  the  Nicholson  letter  of  Gen.  Cass.  The  former"  is  valuable 
as  a  part  of  the  history  ofthe  Tyler  administration,  and  as 
showing  their  views  on  the  subject  of  the  annexation  of 
Texas.  It  is  a  rare  document,  and  as  curious  as  any  State 
paper  in  the  history  of  the  country. 


STEPHEN     A.    DOUGrLAS.  53 


CHAPTER  Yin. 

1851-1854. 

Speech  in  favor  of  making  Gen.  Winfield  Scott  a  Lieutenant-General — 
Speech  on  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law — Speech  on  the  Foreign  Policy  of  the 
United  States — Retrospective  View  of  the  Course  of  Mr.  Douglas  in 
Congress  up  to  this  Time  (1852) — Mr.  Douglas  the  real  Author  of  the 
Compromise  Measures  of  1850 — Bill  for  the  Organization  of  the  Territo 
ries  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska — Mr.  Douglas  opposes  the  Oregon  Treaty 
with  England — Opposes  the  Peace  Treaty  with  Mexico — Speech  on  the 
Clayton  and  Bulwer  Treaty — Report  on  the  Organization  of  Nebraska 
and  Kansas — The  Nebraska  Bill — Debate  on  it — The  bill  passed. 

ON  the  12th  of  February,  1851,  Mr.  Douglas  spoke  in  favor 
of  conferring  the  rank  of  Lieutenant-General  on  General 
Winfield  Scott.  In  the  course  of  his  remarks,  he  said,  "  I 
would  have  preferred,  however,  to  have  seen  this  proposition 
put  in  a  shape  which  would  have  been  more  consistent  with 
the  organization  of  the  army,  with  reference  to  what  may 
occur  in  the  future.  I  think  that  the  highest  grade  in  the 
army  of  the  United  States  should  be  always  vacant  in  time 
of  peace,  to  be  filled  when  war  should  occur,  by  a  commission 
to  expire  at  the  end  of  the  war.  I  think  that  when  a  war 
occurs,  the  President  of  the  United  States  should  be  tit 
liberty  to  look  through  the  whole  line  of  the  army,  and 
through  the  whole  line  of  the  citizen  soldiery,  to  select  a 
commander-iii-chief  to  conduct  that  war.  I  would,  therefore, 
like  to  see  the  office  of  lieutenant-general  created,  to  be 


54:  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

filled  when  a  war  arises,  and  to  become  vacant  at  its  termi 
nation." 

SPEECH    O1S"   THE   FUGITIVE    SLAVE   LAW. 

On  the  22d,  in  the  debate  on  the  execution  of  the  Fugitive 
Slave  Law,  shortly  after  the  riot  at  Boston,  Mr.  Douglas  said : 
"  The  laws  of  Illinois  have  always  discouraged  negroes  from 
coming  there.  In  regard  to  runaway  slaves  coming  into  the 
State,  we  have  a  law  imposing  penalties  at  the  discretion  of 
the  court,  upon  any  citizen  of  Illinois  who  would  harbor  a 
runaway  slave.  It  has  been  my  fortune,  in  the  course  of  my 
brief  judicial  experience,  to  impose  severe  penalties  upon 
citizens  of  Illinois  for  a  violation  of  that  law  :  it  remains  upon 
the  statute  book  at  this  day.  The  senator  from  Ohio  looks 
upon  this  matter  of  the  rescue  of  a  fugitive  at  Boston,  as  a 
trivial  transaction.  I  do  not.  It  is  well  known  that  there  is 
a  systematic  organization  in  many  of  the  free  States  of  this 
Union,  for  the  purpose  of  evading  the  obligations  of  the  Con 
stitution,  and  to  prevent  the  enforcement  of  the  laws  of  the 
United  States  in  relation  to  fugitive  slaves.  It  has,  at  its 
Lead,  men  of  daring  and  of  desperate  purpose;  and  the  oppo 
sition  to  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law  is  a  combined  and  concerted 
action.  It  is  in  the  nature  of  a  conspiracy  against  the  govern 
ment.  I  say,  therefore,  that  these  conspirators,  be  they  in 
Boston  or  in  Illinois,  are  responsible  for  all  that  any  of  their 
number  may  do  in  resistance  to  this  law.  Sir,  I  hold  white 
men  now  in  my  sight  responsible  for  the  violation  of  the  law 
at  Boston.  It  was  done  under  their  advice,  under  their 
teaching,  under  the  influence  of  their  speeches.  The  negroes 
m  the  free  States  have  been  armed  by  the  abolitionists  during 
the  last  six  months,  for  the  express  purpose  of  violating  the 
Fugitive  Slave  Law.  I  have  stood  in  a  meeting  of  2,000  men, 
and  heard  wrhite  men  tell  the  negroes  to  kill  the  first  white 


STEPHEN      A.DOUGLAS.  55 

man  who  attempted  to  execute  this  law.  I  have  seen  the 
weapons  that  have  been  prepared  by  white  abolitionists,  to 
enable  the  negroes  to  resist.  I  trust  the  penalty  will  fall 
upon  the  white  abolitionists." 

On  the  26th  of  August,  1852,  Mr.  Sumn^r,  of  Massachu 
setts,  made  a  most  violent  speech  against  the  Fugitive  Slave 
Law,  and  in  favor  of  its  repeal. 

Mr.  Douglas  said  in  reply :  "  The  arguments  against  the 
Fugitive  Slave  Law,  are  arguments  against  the  Constitution 
of  our  country.  Gentlemen  should  pass  over  the  law,  and 
make  their  assaults  directly  upon  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  in  obedience  to  which  the  law  was  passed. 
Let  them  proclaim  to  the  world  that  they  feel  bound  to  make 
violent  resistance  to  the  Constitution  which  our  fathers  have 
transmitted  to  us.  The  Constitution  provides  that  no  man 
shall  be  a  senator  unless  he  takes  an  oath  to  support  the 
Constitution.  And  when  he  takes  that  oath,  I  do  not  under 
stand  that  he  has  a  right  to  have  a  mental  reservation,  or 
entertain  any  mental  equivocation  that  he  excepts  that  clause 
which  relates  to  the  surrender  of  fugitives.  I  know  not  how 
a  man  reconciles  it  to  his  conscience  to  take  that  oath  to 
support  the  Constitution,  when  he  believes  that  Constitution 
is  in  violation  of  the  law  of  God.  A  man  who  thus  believes, 
and  yet  takes  the  oath,  commits  perjury  before  God  for  the 
sake  of  the  temporary  honors  of  a  seat  on  this  floor/' 

KOSSUTH. 

On  the  llth  December,  1851,  when  the  resolution  giving 
a  national  welcome  to  Louis  Kossuth,  of  Hungary,  was  pend 
ing  before  the  Senate,  Mr.  Douglas  said  :  "  I  regret  that  this 
resolution  has  been  introduced,  not  because  I  do  not  cordially 
sympathize  in  the  proposed  reception,  but  because  it  cannot 
pass  unanimously.  Its  discussion  and  a  divided  vote  deprive 


56  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

it  of  its  chief  merit.  I  do  not  deem  it  material  whether  the 
reception  of  Gov.  Kossuth  will  give  offence  to  the  crowned 
heads  of  Europe,  provided  it  does  not  violate  the  laws  of 
nations,  and  give  just  cause  of  offence.  The  question  with 
me  is,  whether  the  passage  of  this  resolution  gives  just  cause 
of  offence  according  to  the  laws  of  nations.  I  would  take  no 
step  which  would  violate  the  law  of  nations,  or  give  just 
cause  of  offence  to  any  power  on  earth.  Nor  do  I  think  that 
a  cordial  welcome  to  Gov.  Kossuth  can  be  properly  construed 
into  such  cause  of  offence.  Shall  it  be  said  that  democratic 
America  is  not  to  be  permitted  to  grant  a  hearty  welcome  to 
an  exile  who  has  become  the  representative  of  liberal  princi 
ples  throughout  the  world,  lest  despotic  Austria  and  Russia 
shall  be  offended  ?  I  think  that  the  bearing  of  this  country 
should  be  such  as  to  demonstrate  to  all  mankind  that  America 
sympathizes  with  the  popular  movement  against  despotism. 
The  principle  laid  down  by  Gov.  Kossuth  as  the  basis  of  his 
action,  that  each  state  has  a  right  to  dispose  of  her  own 
destiny,  and  regulate  her  internal  affairs  in  her  own  way,  is 
mi  axiom  in  the  laws  of  nations  which  every  state  ought  to 
recognize  and  respect.  The  armed  intervention  of  Russia  to 
deprive  Hungary  of  her  constitutional  rights,  was  such  a 
violation  of  the  laws  of  nations  as  authorized  England  or  the 
United  States  to  interfere  and  prevent  the  consummation  of 
the  deed.  To  say  in  advance  that  the  United  States  wTiil  not 
interfere  in  vindication  of  the  laws  of  nations,  is  to  give  our 
consent  that  Russia  may  interfere  to  destroy  the  liberties  of 
an  independent  nation.  I  will  make  no  such  declaration. 
On  the  other  hand,  I  will  not  advise  the  declaration  in  ad 
vance  that  we  will  interfere.  Something  has  been  said  about 
our  alliance  with  England.  I  desire  no  alliance  with  Eng 
land." 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  57 


EETKOSPECTIVE   VIEW. 

Let  us  now  take  a  brief  retrospective  view  of  the  Con 
gressional  life  of  Mr.  Douglas,  up  to  this  time.  The  first 
important  vote  he  ever  gave  in  the  House  of  Representatives 
was  in  favor  of  excluding  abolition  petitions,  and  his  vote 
stands  so  recorded.  His  action,  ever  since  he  has  been  a 
member  of  the  Senate,  has  been  governed  by  the  same  prin 
ciple.  "Whenever  the  slavery  agitation  has  been  forced  upon 
Congress,  he  has  met  it  fairly,  directly  and  fearlessly,  and 
endeavored  to  apply  the  proper  remedy.  When  the  stormy 
agitation  arose  in  connection  with  the  annexation  of  Texas, 
he  originated  and  first  brought  forward  the  Missouri  Com 
promise  as  applicable  to  that  territory,  and  had  the  gratifica 
tion  to  see  it  incorporated  in  the  bill  which  annexed  Texas  to 
the  United  States.  He  did  not  deem  this  a  matter  of  much 
moment  as  applicable  to  Texas  alone  ;  but  he  did  conceive  it 
to  be  of  vast  importance  in  view  of  the  probable  acquisition 
of  New  Mexico  and  California.  His  preference  for  the  Mis 
souri  Compromise  was  predicated  on  the  assumption  that  the 
whole  people  of  the  United  States  would  be  more  easily 
reconciled  to  that  measure  than  to  any  other  mode  of  adjust 
ment ;  and  this  assumption  rested  upon  the  fact  that  the 
Missouri  Compromise  had  been  the  means  of  an  amicable 
settlement  of  a  fearful  controversy  in  1821,  which  had  been 
acquiesced  in  cheerfully  by  the  people  for  more  than  a 
quarter  of  a  century,  and  which  all  parties  and  sections  of 
the  Union  respected  and  cherished  as  a  fair,  just  and  honor 
able  adjustment. 

COUKSE    OP   ME.    DOUGLAS    IX    CONGRESS. 

Mr.  Douglas  could  see  no  reason  for  the  application  of  the 
Missouri  line  to  all  the  territory  owned  by  t]ie  United  States; 

3* 


58  THE     LIFE     AND      SPEECHES     OF 

in  1821,  that  would  not  apply  with  equal  force  to  its  exten 
sion  to  the  Rio  Grande,  and  also  to  the  Pacific,  as  soon  as  we 
should  acquire  the  country.  In  accordance  with  these  views, 
he  brought  forward  the  Missouri  Compromise  at  the  session 
of  1845  as  applicable  to  Texas,  and  had  the  satisfaction  to 
see  it  adopted.  Subsequently,  after  the  Avar  with  Mexico 
had  commenced,  and  Avhen,  in  August,  1846,  Mr.  Wilmot 
first  introduced  his  proviso,  Mr.  Douglas  proposed  to  extend 
the  Missouri  Compromise  to  the  Pacific,  as  a  substitute  for 
the  Wilmot  Proviso.  The  Wilmot  Proviso  not  onlv  designed 

*/  O 

to  prohibit  slavery  in  the  territories  while  they  remained  ter 
ritories,  but  proposed  to  insert  a  stipulation  in  the  treaty 
with  Mexico,  pledging  the  faith  of  the  nation  that  slavery 
should  never  exist  in  the  country  acquired,  either  while  it 
remained  a  territory,  or  after  it  should  have  been  admitted 
into  the  Union  as  States.  Mr.  Douglas  denounced  this  pro 
viso  as  being  unwise,  improper,  and  unconstitutional:  he 
never  voted  for  it,  and  more  than  once  declared  that  he 
never  would  vote  for  it.  When  California  and  New  Mexico 
had  been  acquired  without  any  condition  or  stipulation  in 
respect  to  slavery,  the  Wilmot  Proviso  was  disposed  of  for 
ever. 

At  the  time  that  the  question  began  to  be  discussed,  what 
kind  of  territorial  governments  should  be  established  for 
those  countries,  a  severe  domestic  affliction  called  Mr.  Doug 
las  from  Washington,  and  detained  him  several  weeks.  On 
his  return  to  the  Senate  he  supported  the  Clayton  bill, 
which  passed  the  Senate,  but  was  defeated  in  the  House  of 
Representatives.  Mr.  Douglas  then  brought  forward  his 
original  proposition,  to  extend  the  Missouri  Compromise  to 
the  Pacific,  in  the  same  sense  and  with  the  same  understand 
ing  with  which  it  was  originally  adopted.  This  proposition 
passed  the  Senate  by  a  large  majority,  but  was  rejected,  as 
we  have  seen,  by  the  House  of  Representatives.  Mr.  Doug- 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  58 

las  then  conceived  the  idea  of  a  bill  to  admit  California  as  a 
State,  leaving  the  people  to  form  a  constitution,  and  to 
settle  the  question  of  slavery  afterward  to  suit  themselves. 
This  bill  was  introduced  by  Mr.  Douglas  with  the  sanction 
of  President  Polk.  It  recognized  the  right  of  the  people 
of  California  to  determine  all  questions  relating  to  their 
domestic  concerns  in  their  own  way  ;  but  the  Senate  refused 
to  pass  the  bill.  All  this  took  place  before  the  Compromise 
measures  of  Mr.  Clay  were  brought  forward.  During  the 
period  of  five  years  that  Mr.  Douglas  had  been  laboring  for 
the  adoption  of  the  Missouri  Compromise,  his  votes  on  the 
Oregon  question,  and  upon  all  questions  touching  slavery, 
were  given  with  reference  to  a  settlement  on  that  basis,  and 
were  consistent  with  it. 


MR.  DOUGLAS  THE  AUTHOR  OF  THE  COMPROMISE  OF  1850. 

When  Congress  met,  in  December,  1849,  Mr.  Douglas 
was  again  placed  by  the  Senate  at  the  head  of  the  Com 
mittee  on  Territories,  and  it  became  his  duty  to  prepare 
and  submit  some  plan  for  the  settlement  of  those  mo 
mentous  questions,  the  agitation  of  which  had  convulsed 
the  whole  nation.  Early  in  December,  within  the  first 
two  or  three  weeks  of  the  session,  he  wrote  and  laid 
before  the  Committee  on  Territories,  for  their  examina 
tion,  two  bills :  one  for  the  admission  of  California  into  the 
Union,  and  the  other  containing  three  distinct  measures  ; 
first,  for  the  establishment  of  a  territorial  government  for 
Utah  ;  second,  for  the  establishment  of^'a" territorial  govern 
ment  for  N~ew  Mexico ;  and  third,  for  the  settlement  of  the 
Texas  boundary.  These  bills  remained  before  the  Committee 
on  Territories  from  the  month  of  December,  1849,  to  the  25th 
of  March,  1850.  On  that  day  Mr.  Douglas  reported  the  bills, 
and  they  were,  on  his  motion,  ordered  to  be  printed.  These 


60  THE     LIFE     AND      SPEECHES     OF 

punted  bills  having  laid  on  the  tables  of  all  the  senators  for 
four  weeks,  the  Senate  appointed  a  committee  of  thirteen, 
Henry  Clay,  of  Kentucky,  chairman.  That  committee  took 
the  two  printed  bills  of  Mr.  Douglas,  pasted  them  together, 
and  reported  them  to  the  Senate  as  one  bill,  which  was 
thenceforth  known  as  the  Omnibus  Bill.  Mr.  Douglas  made 
this  statement  to  the  Senate  on  the  23d  of  December,  1851, 
while  the  original  Omnibus  Bill  was  yet  upon  the  clerk's 
table.  The  Committee  of  Thirteen  had  drawn  a  black  line 
through  the  words,  "  Mr.  Douglas,  from  the  Committee  on 
Territories,"  and  in  place  of  them,  interlined  these  other 
words,  "  Mr.  Clay,  from  the  Committee  of  Thirteen, 
reported  the  following  bill." 

The  report  of  the  committee  will  be  found  in  a  subsequent 
part  of  this  work. 

Mr.  Douglas  supported  the  Omnibus  Bill  as  a  joint  mea 
sure  ;  but  the  Senate  refused  to  pass  the  measures  together. 
Each  one,  however,  was  passed  separately ;  and  each  one 
was  supported  by  Mr.  Douglas.  Well  might  Mr.  Polk 
remark  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  in  April,  1852,  after 
speaking  of  the  eminent  services  of  Mr.  Douglas  :  "  History 
will  cherish  the  record  of  such  fearless  and  faithful  service, 
and  administer  the  proper  rebuke  to  those  who  from  malice 
or  envy  may  seek  to  detract  from  his  fair  fame." 

We  give  the  material  features  of  these  bills  as  they  were 
passed,  as  a  part  of  the  history  of  the  times,  in  the 
Appendix. 

THE   EIGHT   OF   INSTRUCTION. 

On  the  23d  of  December,  1851,  Mr.  Douglas  made  a 
speech  in  the  Senate,  on  the  resolutions  declaring  the  Com 
promise  measures  of  1850  to  be  a  definitive  and  final  settle 
ment  of  all  the  questions  growing  out  of  the  subject  of 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  61 

domestic  slavery,  in  the  course  of  which  he  took  a  brief 
review  of  the  votes  he  had  given  since  the  introduction  of 
the  Compromise  measures,  and  showed  that  he  had  supported 
them  all..  In  this  speech  he  said : 

MR.  PRESIDENT  :  I  claim  no  merit  for  having  originated  and  proposed  the 
measures  contained  in  the.  Omnibus  Bill.  There  was  no  remarkable  feature 
about  them.  They  were  merely  ordinary  measures  of  legislation,  well 
adapted  to  the  circumstances,  and  their  merit  consisted  in  the  fact 
that  separately  they  could  and  did  pass  both  Houses  of  Congress.  Being 
responsible  for  these  bills,  as  they  came  from  the  hands  of  the  Committee 
on  Territories,  I  wish  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  they  contained  no 
prohibition  of  slavery — no  provision  upon  the  subject.  And  now  I  come 
to  the  point  which  explains  my  object  in  stating  my  votes.  The  legislature 
of  Illinois  had  passed  a  resolution  instructing  me  to  vote  for  a  bill  for  the 
government  of  the  territory  acquired  from  Mexico,  which  should  contain 
an  express  prohibition  of  slavery  in  that  territory  while  it  remained  as 
territories,  leaving  the  people  to  do  as  they  pleased  when  they  became  a 
State.  The  instruction  was  designed  in  order  to  compel  me  to  resign  my 
seat  and  give  place  to  a  Freesoiler.  The  legislature  knew  my  inflexible 
opposition  to  the  principles  asserted  in  the  instructions,  and  wished  me  to 
give  place  to  a  Freesoiler,  who  would  come  here  and  carry  out  abolition 
doctrines.  Notwithstanding  these  instructions,  I  wrote  the  bills  and  re 
ported  them  from  the  Committee  on  Territories  without  the  prohibition,  in 
order  that  the  record  might  show  what  my  opinions  were  ;  but,  lest  the 
trick  against  me  might  fail,  a  Freesoii  senator  offered  an  amendment  in 
the  language  of  my  instructions.  I  knew  that  the  amendment  could  not 
prevail,  even  if  the  vote  of  Illinois  was  recorded  in  its  favor.  But  if  I 
resigned  my  place  to  an  abolitionist,  it  was  almost  certain  that  the  bills 
would  fail  on  their  passage.  I  came  to  the  conclusion  that  duty  required 
me  to  retain  my  seat.  I  was  prepared  to  fight  and  defy  abolitionism  in  all 
its  forms,  but  I  was  not  willing  to  repudiate  the  settled  doctrine  of  my 
State,  in  regard  to  the  right  of  instruction.  Before  the  vote  was  taken,  I 
defined  my  position.  I  denounced  the  doctrine  of  the  amendment,  declared 
my  unalterable  opposition  to  it,  and  gave  notice  that  any  vote  which  might 
be  recorded  in  my  name  seemingly  in  its  favor,  would  be  the  vote  of  those 
who  gave  the  instructions,  and  not  my  own.  Under  this  protest,  I  re 
corded  a  vote  for  this  and  two  other  amendments  embracing  the  same 
principle,  and  then  renewed  my  protest  against  them,  and  gave  notice  that 
I  should  not  hold  myself  responsible  for  them.  Immediately  on  my  return 


62  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

home,  and  in  a  speech  to  my  constituents,  I  renewed  my  protest  against 
these  votes,  and  repeated  the  notice  to  that  infuriated  meeting,  that  they  were 
their  votes,  and  not  mine.  In  that  speech  at  Chicago,  I  said  of  the  territo 
rial  bills :  '  These  measures  are  predicated  on  the  great  fundamental  princi 
ple  that  every  people  ought  to  possess  the  right  of  forming  and  regulating 
their  own  internal  concerns  and  domestic  instillations  in  their  own  way. 
If  those  who  emigrate  to  the  territories  have  the  requisite  intelligence  and 
honesty  to  enact  laws  for  the  government  of  .jjhite  men,  I  know  of  no 
reason  why  they  should  not  be  deemed  competent  to  legislate  for  the 
negro.  If  they  are  sufficiently  enlightened  to  make  laws  for  the  protec 
tion  of  life,  liberty,  and  property,  of  morals  and  education,  to  determine 
the  relation  of  husband  and  wife,  of  parent  and  child,  I  am  not  aware 
that  it  requires  any  higher  degree  of  civilization  to  regulate  the  affairs  of 
master  and  servant.  My  votes  and  acts  have  been  in  accordance  with 
these  views  in  all  cases,  except  in  the  instances  in  which  I  voted  under 
your  instructions.  Those  were  your  votes,  and  not  mine.  I  entered  my 
protest  against  them  at  the  time,  before  and  after  they  were  recorded,  and 
shall  never  hold  myself  responsible  for  them.'  I  made  a  good  many 
speeches  of  the  same  tenor,  the  last  of  which  was  at  the  capital  of  Illinois. 
A  few  weeks  afterward  the  legislature  of  Illinois  assembled,  and  one  of 
their  first  acts  was  to  repeal  the  resolution  of  instructions  to  which  I  have 
referred,  and  to  pass  resolutions  approving  of  the  course  of  my  colleague, 
General  Shields,  and  myself,  on  the  Compromise  measures.  From  that  day 
Illinois  has  stood  firm  and  unwavering  in  support  of  the  Compromise 
measures,  and  of  all  the  compromises  of  the  Constitution. 

Mr.  President,  if  I  have  said  anything  that  savors  of  egotism,  the 
Senate  will  pardon  me.  If  I  had  omitted  all  that  was  personal  to  myself, 
my  defence  would  have  been  incomplete.  I  am  willing  to  be  held  respon 
sible  for  all  my  acts,  but  I  wish  to  be  judged  by  my  acts,  and  not  by  mali 
cious  misrepresentations.  I  may  have  committed  errors ;  but  when  I  am 
convinced  of  them,  I  will  acknowledge  them  like  a  man,  and  promptly 
correct  them.  The  Democratic  party  is  as  good  a  Union  party  as  I  want, 
and  I  want  to  preserve  its  principles  and  its  organization,  and  to  triumph 
upon  its  old  issues.  I  desire  no  new  tests,  no  interpolations  upon  the  old 
creed." 

In  December  1853,  Mr.  Douglas  reported  the  bill  to  organ 
ize  the  Territories  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska,  which  formed 
the  issues  upon  which  the  Democratic  and  Republican  parties 
became  arrayed  against  each  other.  He  opposed  the  treaty 


STEP  HEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  63 

with  England  in  relation  to  the  Oregon  boundary,  contending 
that  England  had  no  rights  on  that  coast.  He  opposed  the 
Trist  peace  treaty  with  Mexico  upon  the  ground  that  the  boun  • 
daries  were  unnatural  and  inconvenient,  and  that  the  provi 
sions  in  relation  to  the  Indians  could  never  be  executed.  The 
United  States  government  has  since  paid  Mexico  ten  millions 
of  dollars  to  change  the  boundaries,  and  to  relinquish  the 
stipulations  in  regard  to  the  Indians.  He  opposed  the  Clay 
ton  and  Bulwer  treaty,  because  it  pledged  the  United  States 
in  all  time  to  come,  never  to  annex  Central  America.  He 
declared  that  he  did  not  desire  to  annex  Central  America  at 
that  time,  but  maintained  that  the  isthmus  routes  must  be 
kept  open  as  highways  to  the  American  possessions  on  the 
Pacific ;  that  the  time  would  come  when  the  United  States 
would  be  compelled  to  occupy  Central  America,  and  that  he 
would  never  pledge  the  faith  of  the  republic  not  to  do  in  the 
future  what  its  interests  and  safety  might  require.  He  also 
declared  himself  in  favor  of  the  acquisition  of  Cuba,  whenever 
that  island  can  be  obtained  consistently  with  the  laws  of 
nations  and  the  honor  of  the  United  States.  We  give  this 
speech  entire  in  a  subsequent  part  of  this  work. 

On  the  4th  of  January  1854,  Senator  Douglas  made  the 
following  Report  relative  to  the  organization  of  the  Territo 
ries  of  Nebraska  and  Kansas : 

The,  Committee  on  Territories,  to  whom  was  referred  a  bill  for  an  act  to  estab 
lish  the  Territories  of  Nebraska,  have  given  the  same  that  serious  and 
deliberate  consideration  which  its  great  importance  demands,  and  beg  leave 
to  report  it  back  to  the  Senate,  with  various  amendments,  in  the  form  of 
a  substitute  for  the  bill  : 

The  principal  amendments  which  your  committee  deem  it  their  duty  to 
commend  to  .the  favorable  action  of  the  Senate,  in  a  special  report,  arc 
those  in  which  the  principles  established  by  the  Compromise  measures  of 
1850,  so  far  as  they  are  applicable  to  territorial  organizations,  are  proposed 
to  be  affirmed  and  carried  into  practical  operation  within  the  limits  of  the 
•iew  Territory. 


64  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES      OF 

The  wisdom  of  those  measures  is  attested,  not  less  by  theii  salutary 
and  beneficial  effects,  in  allaying  sectional  agitation  and  restoring  peace 
and  harmony  to  an  irritated  and  distracted  people,  than  by  the  cordial  and 
almost  universal  approbation  with  which  they  have  been  received  and 
sanctioned  by  the  whole  countr0  In  the  judgment  of  your  Committee, 
those  measures  were  intended  to  have  a  far  more  comprehensive  and  endur 
ing  effect  than  the  mere  adjustment  of  difficulties  arising  out  of  the  recent 
acquisition  of  Mexican  territory.  ^JThey  were  designed  to  establish  certain 
great  principles,  which  would  not  only  furnish  adequate  remedies  for 
existing  evils,  but,  in  all  time  to  come,  avoid  the  perils  of  similar  agitation, 
by  withdrawing  the  question  of  Slavery  from  the  halls  of  Congress  and 
the  political  arena,Jcommitting  it  to  the  arbitration  of  those  who  were 
immediately  interested  in,  and  alone  responsible  for,  its  consequences. 
With  a  view  of  conforming  their  action  to  what  they  regard  as  the  settled 
policy  of  the  government,  sanctioned  by  the  approving  voice  of  the 
American  people,  your  Committee  have  deemed  it  their  duty  to  incorporate 
and  perpetuate,  in  their  Territorial  Bill,  the  principles  and  spirit  of  those 
measures.  If  any  other  consideration  were  necessary  to  render  the  pro 
priety  of  this  course  imperative  upon  the  Committee,  they  may  be  found 
in  the  fact  that  the  Nebraska  country  occupies  the  same  relative  position 
to  the  slavery  question,  as  did  New  Mexico  and  Utah,  when  those  Terri- 
t^ries  were  organized. 

t  was  a  disputed  point,  whether  slavery  was  prohibited  by  law  in  the 

untry  acquired  from  Mexico.  On  the  one  hand,  it  was  contended,  as  a 
legal  proposition,  that  slavery,  having  been  prohibited  by  the  enactment 
of  Mexico,  according  to  the  laws  of  nations,  we  received  the  country  with 
all  its  local  laws  and  domestic  institutions  attached  to  the  soil,  so  far  as 
they  did  not  conflict  with  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States ;  and  that 
a  law  either  protecting  or  prohibiting  slavery,  was  not  repugnant  to  that 
instrument,  as  was  evidenced  by  the  fact  that  one-half  of  the  States  of  the 
Union  tolerated,  while  the  other  half  prohibited,  the  institution  of  slavery. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  was  insisted  that,  by  virtue  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  every  citizen  had  a  right  to  remove  to  any  Territory  of  the 
Union,  and  carry  his  property  with  him  under  the  protection  of  law,  whe 
ther  that  property  consisted  of  persons  or  things.  The  difficulties  arising 
from  this  diversity  of  opinion,  were  greatly  aggravated  by  the  fact  that 
there  were  many  persons  on  both  sides  .of  the  legal  controversy,  who  were 
unwilling  to  abide  the  decision  of  the  courts  on  the  legal  matters  in  dis 
pute  ;  thus,  among  those  who  claimed  that  the  Mexican  laws  were  still  in 
force,  and,  consequently,  that  slavery  was  already  prohibited  in  those  Ter 
ritories  by  valid  enactment,  there  were  many  who  insisted  upon  Congress 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  65 

making  the  matter  certain,  by  enacting  another  prohibition.  In  like  man 
ner,  some  of  those  who  argued  that  Mexican  law  had  ceased  to  have  any 
binding  force,  and  that  the  Constitution  tolerated  and  protected  slave  pro 
perty  in  those  Territories,  were  unwilling  to  trust  the  decision  of  the  courts 
upon  the  point,  and  insisted  that  Congress  should,  by  direct  enactment, 
remove  all  legal  obstacles  to  the  introduction  of  slaves  into  those  Ter 
ritories. 

Such  being  the  character  of  the  controversy  in  respect  to  the  territory 
acquired  from  MexicoTa  similaff  question  has  arisen  in  regard  to  the  right 
to  hold  slaves  in  the  Territory  of  Nebraska,  when  the  Indian  laws  shall  be 
withdrawn,  and  the  country  thrown  open  to  emigration  and  settlement. 
By  the  8th  section  of  "  an  act  to  authorize  the  people  of  Missouri  Territory 
to  form  a  constitution  and  State  government,  and  for  the  admission  of 
such  State  into  the  Union  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original  States,  and 
to  prohibit  slavery  in  certain  Territories,"  approved  March  6th,  1820,  it 
was  provided  ;  "  That  in  all  that  territory  ceded  by  France  to  the  United 
States  under  the  name  of  Louisiana,  which  lies  north  of  36  degrees  30 
minutes  north  latitude,  not  included  within  the  limits  of  the  State  contem 
plated  by  this  act,  slavery  and  involuntary  servitude,  otherwise  than  in  the 
punishment  of  crimes  whereof  the  parties  shall  have  been  duly  convicted, 
shall  be,  and  are  hereby,  prohibited :  Provided  always,  That  any  person 
escaping  into  the  same,  from  whom  labor  or  service  is  lawfully  claimed  in 
any  State  or  Territory  of  the  United  States,  such  fugitive  may  be  lawfully 
reclaimed,  and  conveyed  to  the  persons  claiming  his  or  her  labor  or  services 
as  aforesaid,  "j 

Under  thfssection,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Mexican  law  in  New  Mexico 
and  Utah\it  is  a  disputed  point  whether  slavery  is  prohibited  in  the 
Nebraska  country  by  valid  enactment.  The  decision  of  this  question 
involves  the  constitutional  power  of  Congress  to  pass  laws  prescribing  and 
regulating  the  domestic  institutions  of  the  various  Territories  of  the  Union. 
In  the  opinion  of  those  eminent  statesmen  who  hold  that  Congress  is 
invested  with  no  rightful  authority  to  legislate  upon  the  subject  of  slavery 
in  the  Territories,  the  8th  section  of  the  act  preparatory  to  the  admission 
of  Missouri  is  nulljind  voidTVhiie  the  prevailing  sentiment  in  large  por 
tions  of  the  Union  sustaTnTTtre  doctrine  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  secures  to  every  citizen  an  inalienable  right  to  move  into  any  of  the 
Territories  with  his  property,  of  whatever  kind  and  description,  and  to 
hold  and  enjoy  the  same  under  the  sanction  of  law.  Your  Committee  do 
not  feel  themselves  called  upon  to  enter  upon  the  discussion  of  these  con 
troverted  questions.  They  involve  the  same  grave  issues  which  produced 
the  agitation,  the  sectional  strife,  and  the  fearful  struggle  of  1850.  As 


00  THE     LIFE     AND      SPEECHES     OF 

Congress  deemed  it  wise  and  prudent  to  refrain  from  deciding  the  matters 
vn  controversy  then,  either  by  affirming  or  repealing  the  Mexican  laws,  or 
ft  an  act  declaratory  of  the  true  intent  of  the  Constitution,  and  the  extent 
af  the  protection  afforded  by  it  to  slave  property  in  the  Territories,  so 
your  Committee  are  not  prepared  to  recommend  a  departure  from  the  course 
pursued  on  that  memorable  occasion,  either  by  affirming  or  repealing  the 
8th  section  of  the  Missouri  act,  or  by  any  act  declaratory  of  the  meaning 
of  the  Constitution  in  respect  to  the  legal  points  in  dispute. 

Your  Committee  deem  it  fortunate  for  the  peace  of  the  country,  and  the 
security  of  the  Union,  that  the  controversy  then  resulted  in  the  adoption 
of  the  Compromise  measures,  which  the  two  great  political  parties,  with 
singular  unanimity,  have  affirmed  as  a  cardinal  article  of  their  faith,  and 
proclaimed  to  the  world  as  a  final  settlement  of  the  controversy  and  an 
end  to  the  agitation.  A  due  respect,  therefore,  for  the  avowed  opinions 
of  senators,  as  well  as  a  proper  sense  of  patriotic  duty,  enjoins  upoa  your 
Committee  the  propriety  and  necessity  of  a  strict  adherence  to  the  princi 
ples,  and  even  a  literal  adoption  of  the  enactments  of  that  adjustment,  in 
all  their  territorial  bills,  so  far  as  the  same  are  not  locally  inapplicable. 
Those  enactments  embrace,  among  other  things  less  material  to  the  mat 
ters  under  consideration,  the  following  provisions : 

"When  admitted  as  a  State,  the  said  Territory,  or  any  portion  of  the  same, 
shall  be  received  into  the  Union,  with  or  without  Slavery,  as  their  consti 
tution  may  prescribe  at  the  time  of  their  admission  ; 

That  the  legislative  power  and  authority  of  said  Territory  shall  be  vested 
in  the  Governor  and  a  Legislative  Assembly ; 

That  the  legislative  power  of  said  Territory  shall  extend  to. all  rightful 
subjects  of  legislation,  consistent  with  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  and  the  provisions  of  this  act ;  but  no  law  shall  be  passed  interfer 
ing  with  the  primary  disposal  of  the  soil ;  no  tax  shall  be  imposed  upon 
the  property  of  the  United  States ;  nor  shall  the  lands  or  other  property 
of  non-residents  be  taxed  higher  than  the  lands  or  other  property  of 
residents."*"^ 

Writs^er  error  and  appeals  from  the  final  decisions  of  said  Supreme  Court 
shall  be  allowed,  and  may  be  taken  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  in  the  same  manner  and  under  the  same  regulations  as  from  the  Cir 
cuit  Courts  of  the  United  States,  where  the  value  of  the  property  or  amount 
in  controversy,  to  be  ascertained  by  the  oath  or  affirmation  of  either  party, 
or  other  competent  witness,  shall  exceed  one  thousand  dollars  ;  except  only 
that,  in  all  cases  involving  title  to  slaves,  the  said  writs  of  error  or  appeals 
shall  be  allowed  and  decided  by  the  said  Supreme  Court,  without  regard  to 
the  value  of  the  matter,  property,  or  title  in  controversy  ;  and  except,  also 


STEPHEN     A.DOUGLAS.  67 

that  a  writ  of  error  or  appeal  shall  also  be  allowed  to  the  Supreme  Court  oi 
the  United  States  from  the  decision  of  the  said  Supreme  Court  by  this  act, 
s>r  of  any  judge  thereof,  or  of  the  district  courts  created  by  this  act,  or  of 
my  judge  thereof,  upon  any  writ  of  habeas  corpus  involving  the  question 
of  personal  freedom  ;  and  each  of  the  said  district  courts  shall  have  and 
exercise  the  same  jurisdiction,  in  all  cases  arising  under  the  Constitution 
ami  laws  of  the  United  States,  as  is  vested  in  thech'cuit  and  district  courts 
of  the  United  States;  and  the  said  supreme  and  district  courts  of  the  said 
territory,  and  the  respective  judges  thereof,  shall  and  may  grant  writs  of 
habeas  corpus,  in  all  cases  in  which  the  same  are  granted  by  the  judges  of 
the  United  States  in  the  District  of  Columbia. 

To  which  may  be  added  the  following  proposition  affirmed  by  the  act  of 
1850,  and  known  as  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law. 

That  the  provisions  of  the  "  act  respecting  fugitives  from  justice,  and 
persons  escaping  from  the  service  of  their  masters,"  approved  February  12, 
1793,  and  the  provisions  of  the  act  to  amend  and  supplementary  to  the 
aforesaid  act,  approved  September  18,  1850,  shall  extend  to,  and  be  in  force 
in,  all  the  organized  Territories,  as  well  as  in  the  various  States  of  the 
Union.  AMS>  V*  CC»4CUjl6l6ft& 

From  these  provisions  it  is  apparent  that  the  Compromise  measures  of 

50  affirm,  and  rest  upon,  the  following  propositions  : 

First :  That  all  questions  pertaining  to  Slavery  in  the  Territories,  and  the 
new  States  to  be  formed  therefrom,  are  to  be  left  to  the  decision  of  the 
people  residing  therein,  by  their  appropriate  representatives,  to  be  chosen 
by  them  for  that  purpose. 

Second:  That  "all  cases  involving  title  to  slaves,"  and  "  questions  of 
personal  freedom,"  are  to  be  referred  to  the  adjudication  of  the  local  tri 
bunals,  with  the  right  of  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States. 

Third  :  That  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  in 
respect  to  fugitives  from  service,  is  to  be  carried  into  faithful  execution  in 
all  "  the  original  Territories,"  the  same  as  in  the  States. 

The  substitute  for  the  bill  which  your  Committee  have  prepared,  and 
which  is  commended  to  the  favorable  action  of  the  Senate,  proposes  to 
carry  these  propositions  and  principles  into  practical  operation,  in  the  pre 
cise  language  of  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850. 


1850.*} 


The  bill  thus  reported  was  considered  in  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  and  then  made  the  special  order  for  the  following 
Monday.  The  debate  was  continued  Jan.  31st,  Feb.  3d,  5th, 
and  6th. 


68  THE     LIFE     AND      SPEECHES      OF 

On  the  23d  of  January,  Mr.  Douglas,  from  the  Committee 
on  Territories,  reported  a  substitute  for  the  original  bill,  in 
nearly  the  same  terms,  in  which,  after  defining  the  limits  of 
the  territory,  it  was  proposed  to  constitute  it  a  Territory,  to 
be  afterward  admitted  as  a  State,  with  or  without  slavery,  as 
their  constitution  may  prescribe  at  the  time  of  their  admis 
sion.  It  was  declared  to  be  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of 
the  act  to  carry  into  practical  operation  the  principles  of  the 
Compromise  measures  of  1850,  to  wit,  That  all  questions 
pertaining  to  slavery  in  the  Territories,  and  in  the  new  States 
to  be  formed  therefrom,  are  to  be  left  to  the  decision  of  the 
people  residing  therein  ;  and  that  the  provisions  of  the  Con 
stitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States,  in  respect  to  fugitives 
from  service,  are  to  be  carried  into  faithful  execution  in  all 
the  organized  Territories.  ,To  the  words  "the  C/onstitution 
and  all  laws  of  the  United  States  not  locally  inapplicable, 
shall  have  the  same  force  and  effect  within  the  said  Territory 
as  elsewhere  in  the  United  States,"  the  substitute  proposed 
to  add  these  words  :  "  Except  the  8th  section  of  the  Act  for 
the  admission  of  Missouri  into  the  Union,  approved  March 
6,  1820,  which  was  superseded  by  the  Compromise  measures 
of  1850,  and  is  declared  inoperative.' 

DEBATE    OX    THE    NEBRASKA    BILL. 

On  the  30th  of  January,  Mr.  Douglas  made  his  first  speech 
in  favor  of  the  Nebraska  Bill.  We  give  the  speech  in  a  sub 
sequent  part  of  this  work. 

On  the  15th  of  February,  Mr.  Douglas  moved  to  strike 
out  of  his  substitute  the  assertion  that  the  Missouri  restric 
tion  "  was  superseded  by  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850," 
and  insert  instead  the  following  : 

"  Which,  being  inconsistent  with  the  principle  of  non-intervention  by 
Congress  with  Slavery  in  the  States  and  Territories,  as  recognized  by  the 


STEPHEN     A.DOUGLAS.  69 

legislation  of  1850  (commonly  called  the  Compromise  measures),  is  hereby 
declared  inoperative  and  void  ;  it  being  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of 
this  act  not  to  legislate  slavery  into  any  Territory  or  State,  nor  to  exclude 
it  therefrom,  but  to  leave  the  people  thereof  perfectly  free  to  form  and 
regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  tho 
Constitution  of  the  United  States," 

which  prevailed — yeas  35,  nays  lO-^-as  follows: 

YEAS— -for  Douglas1  Amendment :  Messrs.  Adams,  Atchison,  Bayard, 
Bell,  Benjamin,  Brodhead,  Brown,  Butler,  Cass,  Clayton,  Dawson,  Dixon, 
Dodge  of  Iowa,  Douglas,  Evans,  Fitzpatrick,  Geyer,  Gwin,  Hunter,  John 
son,  Jones  of  Iowa,  Jones  of  Tenn,  Mason,  Morton,  Norris,  Pierce,  Pettit, 
Pratt,  Sebastian,  Slidell,  Stuart,  Thompson  of  Ky.  Toombs,  Wellev, 
Williams— 35. 

NAYS — against  the  Amendment :  Messrs.  Allen,  Chase,  Dodge  of  Wise., 
Everett,  Fish,  Foote,  Houston,  Seward,  Sumncr,  Wade — 10. 

The  vote  on  this  amendment  is  significant,  and  we  invite 
to  it  the  attention  of  the  reader.  Here  we  have  the  em 
phatic  declaration  of  every  Democratic  senator,  especially  of 
every  Democratic  senator  from  the  slave  States,  in  favor  of 
the  great  peace  measure  of  non-intervention  with  slavery  in 
the  States  and  Territories,  avowing  "the  true  intent  and 
meaning  of  this  act  to  be,  not  to  legislate  slavery  into  any 
Territory  or  State,  nor  to  exclude  it  therefrom,  but  to  leave 
the  people  thereof  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic 
institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States."  How  this  doctrine,  deemed  sound, 
then,  contrasts  with  the  late  shibboleth  of  the  Senate  caucus, 
that  if  the  people  of  a  Territory  want  slavery,  Congress 
shall  not  interfere,  but  if  they  do  not  want  it,  Congress  is  to 
legislate  it  on  them. 


Mr.  Badger  of  N.  C.  moved  to  add  to  the  aforesaid  sec- 

3n: 

"  Provided,  That  nothing  herein  contained  shall  be  construed  to  revive 


70  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

or  put  in  force  any  law  or  regulation  which  may  have  existed  prior  to  the 
to  the  act  of  6th  of  March,  1S20,  either  protecting,  establishing,  prohibit 
ing,  or  abolishing  Slavery." 

Carried — yeas  35,  nays  6. 

It  had  been  charged  by  Edmund  Burke,  of  New  Hamp 
shire,  and  other  Abolition  enemies  of  the  measure  at  the 
north,  that  the  repeal  of  the  restriction  would  revive  slavery 
in  Kansas  and  Nebraska,  by  putting  in  force  the  old  French 
laws.  The  object  of  Mr.  Badger  was  to  set  this  slander  at 
rest.  Every  Southern  Democrat  voted  for  the  proviso. 

The  question  on  the  engrossment  of  the  bill  was  now 
reached,  and  it  was  carried — yeas  29,  nays  12 — as  follows  : 

YEAS — To  engross  the  bill  for  its  third  reading:  MESSRS.  Adams, 
Atehison,  Badger,  Benjamin,  Brodhead,  Brown,  Butler,  Clay,  Dawson, 
Dixon,  Dodge  of  Iowa,  Douglas,  Evans,  Fitzpatrick,  Gvvin,  Hunter,  John 
son.  Jones  of  Iowa,  Jones  of  Tenn.,  Mason,  Morton,  Norris,  Pettit,  Pratt, 
Sebastian,  Shields,  Slidell,  Stuart,  Williams— 29. 

NAYS — against  the  engrossment:  Messrs.  Chase,  Dodge  of  Wise., 
Fessenden,  Fish,  Foot,  Hamlin,  James,  Seward,  Smith,  Sumner,  Wade, 
Walker— 12. 

On  the  night  of  the  3d  of  March,  1854,  Mr.  Douglas 
closed  the  debate  in  a  speech  of  great  eloquence  and  ability. 
The  attention  of  the  reader  is  particularly  directed  to  those 

;  passages  in  which  Mr.  Douglas  speaks  of  the  necessity  for 
the  organization  of  these  Territories ;  and  to  his  elucidation 
of  what  had  generally  been  called  the  Missouri  Compromise, 
in  which  he  proves  that  Missouri  was  not  admitted  into  the 
Union  under  the  Missouri  restriction,  the  Act  of  1S20,  but 
under  Mr.  Clay's  compromise,  or  joint  resolution,  of  March 
2,  1821 ;  and  also  to  the  broad  nationality  of  the  views  of  the 
whale  speech.  We  give  it  entire  in  a  subsequent  part  of  the 
work. 


STEPHEN      A.DOUGLAS.  71 

The  vote  was  then  taken,  and  the  bill  passed — yeas  37, 
nays  14.  So  the  bill  was  passed,  and  its  title  declared  to  be 
"  An  Act  to  organize  the  Territories  of  Nebraska  and  Kan 
sas."  The  bill  being  approved  by  the  President,  became  a 
law.  We  give  it  entire,  in  a  subsequent  part  of  this  work. 


72  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OS 


CHAPTER  IX. 

Mil.    DOUGLAS    AT   CHICAGO,    1854, 

IT  is  difficult  to  give  a  full  idea  of  the  excitement  that  pre 
vailed  at  Chicago,  at  the  time  of  the  passage  of  the  Nebraska 
bill.  It  far  surpassed  the  excitement  in  1850,  relative  to  the 
Compromise  measures.  The  ranks  of  the  Abolitionists, 
always  full  there,  had  been  largely  recruited  during  the 
last  three  years :  and  among  the  new  converts  were  many 
professed  ministers  of  the  Gospel.  These  men  eagerly  seized 
on  any  pretext  that  would  give  them  a  little  notoriety,  and  as 
the  public  mind,  that  is  to  say,  the  Abolition  sentiment  in 
Chicago,  was  already  worked  up  to  a  high  pitch,  they  con 
ceived  the  idea  of  treating  Senator  Douglas  as  a  delinquent 
schoolboy.  Accordingly,  they  addressed  to  him,  and  pub 
lished  in  the  Chicago  daily  papers  at  the  same  time,  a  most 
scurrilous  and  abusive  letter,  in  which  they  impiously  arro 
gated  to  themselves  the  authority  to  speak  "  in  the  name  of 
Almighty  God,"  and  soundly  berated  Mr.  Douglas  for  his 
course  in  the  Senate.  With  admirable  temper,  Mr.  Douglas 
wrote  them  a  letter,  which  will  be  found  in  a  subsequent  part 
of  this  work. 

In  the  autumn  of  1854,  Mr.  Douglas  returned  to  Chicago. 
The  city  was  convulsed  with  excitement.  The  Nebraska 
Bill,  and  its  author,  were  denounced  in  the  most  bitter  and 
violent  manner.  Neither  were  understood.  The  opposition 
organs,  the  "  Tribune,"  the  "  Journal,"  and  the  "Press,"  had 


STEPHEN     A.DOUGLAS.  73 

for  mouths  teemed  with  articles  written  in  the  most  savage 
style,  in  which  the  Nebraska  Bill  and  its  provisions  had  been 
studiously  misrepresented  and  misquoted,  and  Mr.  Douglas 
vilified  and  abused  as  the  author  of  countless  woes  to  genera 
tions  yet  unborn.  It  is  no  compliment  to  the  intelligence  of 
the  readers  and  supporters  of  these  papers  to  state  what  is, 
nevertheless,  the  fact,  that  these  statements  were  swallowed 
with  eager  credulity,  and  that  Mr.  Douglas  was  regarded  by 
the  Abolitionists  as  a  monster  in  human  form. 

In  a  few  days  after  his  arrival  in  Chicago,  Mr.  Douglas 
caused  the  announcement  to  be  made  that  he  would  address 
the  citizens  in  vindication  of  the  Nebraska  Bill.  A  meeting 
was  accordingly  appointed,  to  take  place  at  North  Market 
Hall.  At  the  hour  of  meeting,  the  vast  space  in  front  of  the 
Hall  was  filled  with  men,  the  crowd  numbering  nearly  ten 
thousand  persons.  Probably  one-third  of  the  number  were 
really  desirous  to  hear  the  senator's  speech ;  but  by  far  the 
greater  part  of  the  crowd  were  violent  and  radical  Abolition 
ists,  who  were  determined  that  he  should  not  speak. 

HIS     SPEECH   THEEE. 

Mr.  Douglas  appeared  before  the  meeting,  on  an  open  bal 
cony,  and  commenced  his  address.  He  alluded  to  the  excite 
ment  that  prevailed,  but  asked  a  patient  hearing,  and  pro- 
iiiLsed  his  auditc  to  be  as  brief  as  he  could  be,  consistently 
with  a  full  exposition  of  the  subject.  He  spoke  of  the  sacred 
rights  of  the  people  of  the  Territories  to  form  and  regulate 
their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way ;  the  great  prin 
ciple  that  lay  at  the  foundation  of  the  Nebraska  Bill.  At  this 
part  of  his  remarks,  several  prominent  Abolitionists  com 
menced  to  groan  and  hiss.  Others  followed  the  example* 
The  noise  and  tumult  increased. 

The  senator  stopped  speaking,  and  stood  calmly,  with  his 

4 


74  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

arms  folded  upon  his  breast,  and  his  eye  surveying  the  angry 
and  excited  multitude.  He  waited  patiently  till  the  noise  sub 
sided,  and  then,  stretching  forth  his  hand,  he  proceeded.  He 
described  the  Territories  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska,  and  alluded 
to  the  fact  that  for  the  last  ten  years,  he  had  endeavored,  at 
every  session  of  Congress,  to  have  them  organized.  Here 
the  groans  and  hisses  were  redoubled  in  violence,  and  came 
from  all  parts  of  the  meeting.  The  most  opprobrious  epi 
thets  were  applied  to  Mr.  Douglas,  and  the  most  insulting 
language  used  to  him  by  rowdies  in  the  crowd.  In  vain  se- 
•veral  gentlemen  endeavored  to  restore  order.  The  Aboli 
tionists  were  determined  that  Mr.  Douglas  should  not  be 
heard ;  and  they  succeeded.  For  nearly  four  hours  after  this 
did  Mr.  Douglas  essay  to  make  himself  heard ;  and  each  time 
did  the  yells  and  hootings  of  the  infuriated  multitude  drown 
his  voice.  At  last,  it  being  Saturday  night,  he  deliberately 
pulled  out  his  watch  under  the  gaslight,  and  observing  that 
it  was  after  twelve  o'clock,  he  said  in  a  stentorian  voice, 
which  was  heard  above  the  din  of  the  crowd :  "Abolitionists 
of  Chicago  !  it  is  now  Sunday  morning.  I  will  go  to  church, 
while  you  go  to  the  devil  in  your  own  way." 


A   SCE^STE  FOR   A  TAINTEE. 

In  her  whole  history,  Chicago  has  never  witnessed  so  dis 
graceful  a  scene  as  this.  There  was  a  parallel  occurrence  in 
the  life  of  Rienzi,  the  last  of  the  Roman  Tribunes,  thus 
described  by  the  great  English  novelist : 

"  On  they  came,  no  longer  in  measured  order,  as  stream  after  stream— 
from  lane,  from  alley,  from  palace,  and  from  hovel — the  raging  sea  received 
new  additions.  On  they  came — their  passions  excited  by  their  numbers — 
women  and  men,  children  and  malignant  age — in  all  the  awful  array  of 
aroused,  released,  unresisted  physical  strength  and  brutal  wrath  :  '  Death 
to  the  traitor — death  to  the  tyrant — death  to  him  who  has  taxed  the  peo 


STEPHEN     A.    DOUGLAS.  75 

pie  !'  *  Mora  '1  traditore  che  ha  fatta  la  gabella  ! — Mora !'  Such  was  the 
cry  of  the  people — such  the  crime  of  the  senator  !  They  broke  over  the 
low  palisades  of  the  capitol — they  filled  with  one  sudden  rush  the  vast 
space — a  moment  before  so  desolate — now  swarming  with  human  beings 
athirst  for  blood ! 

"  Suddenly  came  a  dead  silence,  and  on  the  balcony  above  stood  Rienzi 
— his  face  was  bared,  and  the  morning  sun  shone  over  that  lordly  brow, 
and  the  hair  grown  grey  before  its  time,  in  service  of  that  maddening  mul 
titude.  Pale  and  erect  he  stood — neither  fear,  nor  anger,  nor  menace — 
but  deep  grief  and  high  resolve  upon  his  features  !  A  momentary  shame 
— a  momentary  awe,  seized  the  crowd. 

"  He  pointed  to  the  gonfalon,  wrought  with  the  republican  motto  and 
arms  of  Rome,  and  thus  he  began  : 

"  '  I  too  am  a  Roman  and  a  citizen  ;  hear  me  !' 

"  '  Hear  him  not;  hear  him  not !  his  false  tongue  can  charm  away  our 
senses!'  cried  a  voice  louder  than  his  own;  and  Rienzi  recognized  Cecco 
del  Vecchio. 

"  'Hear  him  not ;  down  with  the  tyrant !'  cried  a  more  shrill  and  youth 
ful  tone ;  and  by  the  side  of  the  artisan  stood  Angelo  Villani. 

*' '  Hear  him  not;  death  to  the  death-giver!'  cried  a  voice  close  at  hand, 
and  from  the  grating  of  the  neighboring  prison  glared  near  upon  him,  as 
the  eye  of  a  tiger,  the  vengeful  gaze  of  the  brother  of  Montreal. 

"  Then  from  earth  to  Heaven  rose  the  roar — '  Down  with  the  tyrant — 
down  with  him  who  taxed  the  people  P 

u  A  shower  of  stones  rattled  on  the  mail  of  the  senator — still  he  stirred 
not.  No  changing  muscle  betokened  fear.  His  persuasion  of  his  own 
wonderful  powers  of  eloquence,  if  he  could  but  be  heard,  inspired  him  yet 
with  hope.  He  stood  collected  in  his  own  indignant  but  determined 
thoughts  ;  but  the  knowledge  of  that  very  eloquence  was  now  his  deadliest 
foe.  The  leaders  of  the  multitude  trembled  lest  he  should  be  heard ; 
'  and  doubtless^  says  the  contemporaneous  biographer,  '  had  he  but  spoken 
he  would  have  changed  them  all}  " 

Thus  it  was  at  the  meeting  at  the  North  Market  Hall. 
The  leaders  of  the  multitude  trembled  lest  Douglas  sho  xidbe 
heard;  they  remembered  the  effect  of  his  eloquence  in  1550, 
and  they  knew  that  if  he  was  permitted  to  speak  n<  % ,  he 
could  and  would  convince  the  citizens  of  Chicago,  ft  i  l^» 
Fecond  time,  that  he  was  right  and  they  were  wrong. 


76  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     O  * 


SPEECH    AT  THE  TEEMONT   HOUSE. 

After  the  close  of  the  canvass  of  that*  year,  in  which  Mr. 
Douglas  had  addressed  the  people  in  every  portion  of  Illinois, 
he  returned  to  Chicago,  and  on  the  19th  of  November,  two 
hundred  and  fifty  gentlemen  of  that  city,  personal  and  po 
litical  friends  of  Senator  Douglas,  tendered  him  the  compli 
ment  of  a  public  dinner  at  the  Tremont  House.  After  the 
repast,  and  in  response  to  a  toast  in  compliment  to  the  "  dis 
tinguished  guest,  the  originator  and  successful  advocate  of 
the  Illinois  Central  Railroad,  and  the  champion  of  State 
Rights  and  Constitutional  Liberty,"  Mr.  Douglas  made  the 
speech  which  we  give  in  a  subsequent  part  of  this  work. 

In  this  speech,  Mr.  Douglas  takes  up  and  critically  ex 
amines  the  Nebraska  Bill,  and  proves  the  soundness  of  the 
principles  on  which  it  is  founded :  he  fastens  upon  the  House 
of  Representatives  in  1848  the  responsibility  for  all  the  sub 
sequent  slavery  agitation,  by  their  rejection  of  the  Missouri 
Compromise  line,  after  it  had  passed  the  Senate :  he  proves 
that  the  Abolitionists  and  Freesoilers,  by  supporting  Van 
Buren,  pledged  themselves  to  blot  out  the  Missouri  Compro 
mise  line  :  he  calls  to  the  recollection  of  his  hearers  the  fact, 
that  he  was  abused  and  vilified  in  the  year  1848,  and  called 
"  Stephen  A.  Douglas  the  solitary  exception,"  meaning  that  he 
was  the  only  northern  member  of  Congress  who  was  in  favor 
of  adhering  to  the  Missouri  Compromise  line  ;  and  the  other 
fact,  that  the  same  Abolitionists  and  Freesoilers  now  pretend 
to  support  a  measure  which  they  then  declared  infamous. 
He  graphically  describes  the  manner  in  which  the  Compro 
mise  measures  of  1850  were  formed;  and  then,  passing  again 
to  the  Nebraska  Bill,  he  shows  that  its  great  principle  was 
to  guarantee  to  the  people  of  all  the  new  Territories  the  right 
(which  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  had  already 


STEPHEN      A.DOUGLAS.  77 

secured,  but  which  the  Missouri  Compromise  had  taken 
away)  of  determining  the  question  of  slavery  for  themselves. 
He  proves,  by  the  unequivocal  testimony  of  the  oldest  and 
wisest  patriots  of  the  country,  that  the  Abolitionists  have 
proved  to  be  the  very  worst  enemies  of  the  slaves,  have  riveted 
stronger  their  chains,  taken  away  some  of  the  privileges 
which  they  had  before  enjoyed,  and  actually  put  a  stop  to 
their  owners  emancipating  them. 

THE   "  REPUBLICAN  "    PARTY   ANALYZED. 

The  last  part  of  the  speech  is  a  complete  and  searching  ex 
position  of  the  platform  and  principles  of  the  new  "  Repub 
lican  party  "  which  had  just  been  formed.  He  proves  it  to 
be  purely  an  abolition  party,  the  principles  of  which 
were  entirely  sectional,  arraying  the  North  against  the  South, 
and  which,  of  course,  could  never  be  a  national  party.  We 
give  this  speech  entire  in  a  subsequent  part  of  this  work. 


78  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 


CHAPTER  X. 

TERRITORIAL   POLICY    OF   MR.    DOUGLAS,    1856. 

Report  of  Mr.  Douglas  on  the  Territorial  Policy  of  the  Government- 
Speech  in  Reply  to  Trumbull,  and  in  Support  of  the  Bill  authorizing  the 
People  of  Kansas  to  form  a  Constitution  and  State  Government — Speech 
in  Reply  to  Mr.  Collamer — The  Bill  passed  by  the  Senate — Report  of 
Mr.  Douglas  on  the  House  Bill. 

AFFAIRS    IN   KANSAS. 

THE  34th  Congress  met  on  the  first  Monday  in  December, 
1855,  but  the  House  of  Representatives  was  unable  to 
organize  or  to  choose  a  Speaker  for  nine  weeks.  On  the 
31st  of  December,  President  Pierce  transmitted  his  An 
nual  Message  to  Congress,  in  which  he  only  slightly  alluded 
to  the  recent  troubles  in  Kansas.  On  the  24th  of  January, 
however,  he  sent  a  special  message  to  Congress  in  regard  to 
the  affairs  in  Kansas,  which  will  be  found  in  a  subsequent 
part  of  this  work. 

On  the  12th  of  March,  1856,  Mr.  Douglas  made  his  great 
report  on  the  affairs  of  Kansas  Territory.  In  this  report,  he 
elucidates  the  constitutional  principles  under  which  new 
States  may  be  admitted,  and  Territories  organized.  He  ex 
poses  the  designs  of  the  Massachusetts  Emigrant  Aid  Soci 
ety  ;  traces  from  their  inception  the  treasonable  acts  of  that 
secret  military  organization,  the  "  Kansas  Legion ;"  and 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  79 

proves  that  all  the  troubles  in  Kansas  originated  in  attempts 
to  violate  or  circumvent  the  principles  and  provisions  of  the 
Nebraska  Bill.  This  report  will  be  found  in  a  subsequent 
part  of  this  work. 

Mr.  Jacob  Collamer,  of  Vermont,  who  constituted  the 
minority  of  the  committee,  made  a  minority  report  on  the 
same  day. 

TRUMBULL'S   SPEECH. 

Two  days  afterward,  on  the  14th  of  March,  Mr.  Lyman 
Trumbull,  who  had  taken  his  seat  a  few  days  before,  as  a 
senator  from  Illinois,  in  the  place  of  General  Shields,  ad 
dressed  the  Senate  in  opposition  to  the  views  expressed  in 
the  report  of  Mr.  Douglas.  Mr.  Douglas  was  absent  from 
the  Senate  chamber  at  the  time,  but  notwithstanding  his 
knowledge  of  this  fact,  Mr.  Trumbull  was  offensively  per 
sonal.  It  might  have  been  supposed  that  in  making  his  first 
speech  in  the  Senate,  Mr.  Trumbull  would  have  had  some 
regard  to  common  decency  and  propriety.  But  in  point  of 
fact,  he  was  so  violent  and  coarse  in  his  invective  as  to  dis 
gust  the  whole  body  of  senators.  As  soon  as  the  rules  of  the 
Senate  would  permit,  he  was  stopped  by  Mr.  Weller  of  Cali 
fornia,  who  called  for  the  special  order  of  the  day,  which  was 
the  bill  to  increase  the  efficiency  of  the  army.  But  as  this 
was  his  first  speech,  he  had  the  effrontery  to  insist  upon  con 
tinuing  his  rigmarole  of  abuse,  and  did  go  on  till  nearly  4 
o'clock.  Shortly  before  that  time,  Mr.  Douglas  entered  the 
Senate  chamber,  and  when  Mr.  Trumbull  had  exhausted  the 
vials  of  his  wrath,  and  sat  down,  Mr.  Douglas  said  : 

Mr.  President,  I  was  very  much  surprised  when  it  was  communi 
cated  to  me  this  afternoon  that  my  colleague  was  making  a  speecli 
on  the  Kansas  question,  in  which  he  was  arraigning  my  own  conduct 
and  the  statements  and  principles  set  forth  in  the  report  which  I  had 
the  honor  to  submit  to  the  Senate  two  days  since  from  the  Committee 
on  Territories. 


80  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES      OF 

The  feeble  state  of  my  own  health,  which  is  well  known  to  the 
Senate,  rendered  it  imprudent  for  me  to  be  in  the  Senate  chamber 
to-day,  and  I  stayed  away  for  that  reason.  I  never  dreamed  that 
any  man  in  this  body  would  so  far  forget  the  courtesies  of  life,  and 
the  well  known  usages  of  the  Senate,  as  to  make  an  assault  in  my 
absence  in  violation  of  the  distinct  understanding  of  the  body  when 
the  subject  was  postponed. 

My  colleague  says  that  he  did  not  know  that  I  was  not  here.  Now, 
I  am  informed  that  my  friend  from  Texas  (Mr.  Rusk),  when  the 
morning  hour  expired,  suggested,  among  other  reasons  for  a  post 
ponement,  that  I  was  absent.  The  senator  from  Texas  told  my  col 
league  that  I  was  absent,  and,  therefore,  according  to  the  courtesies 
of  the  Senate,  his  speech  should  have  been  postponed.  In  the  face 
of  a  fact  known  to  every  man  present,  my  colleague  now  dares  to 
say  that  he  did  not  know  I  was  absent. 

Sir,  I  believe  in  fair  and  free  discussion.  Whatever  speeches  I 
may  have  to  make  in  reference  to  my  colleague  or  his  political  posi 
tion,  or  in  reference  to  other  senators,  will  be  made  to  their  faces. 
I  do  not  wish  to  avoid  the  responsibility  of  a  reply  to  the  points  that 
shall  be  made.  I  will  not  attempt  to  reply  to  my  colleague  upon 
hearsay,  having  been  absent,  from  the  causes  which  I  have  stated 
during  the  delivery  of  the  greater  portion  of  his  speech.  I  desire, 
however,  to  ask  him,  with  a  view  to  fix  the  time  for  the  discussion 
of  th-e  subject,  at  what  period  of  time  I  may  reasonably  look  for  his 
printed  speech?  I  desire  to  reply  to  its  statements,  and  I  ask  the 
question  with  a  view  to  have  the  subject  postponed  until  the  time 
which  he  may  name. 

ME.  TBUMBULL. — I  think  my  remarks  will  be  published  on  Mon- 
d'ty. 

MR.  DOUGLAS. — If  I  can  rely  on  seeing  the  speech  published  in  the 
"  Globe  "  on  Monday,  I  will  reply  to  it  on  Tuesday ;  and  I  shall  ask 
the  Senate  to  accord  to  me  that  courtesy.  I  propose  to  reply  on  the 
next  day  after  its  publication. 

ME.  SEWAED  and  ME.  TBUMBULL. — Take  your  own  time. 

MR.  DOUGLAS. — Sir,  I  understand  this  game  of  taking  my  own 
time.  Last  year,  when  the  Nebraska  Bill  was  under  consideration, 
the  senator  from  Massachusetts  (Mr.  Sumner)  asked  of  me  the  cour 
tesy  to  have  it  postponed  for  a  week,  until  he  could  examine  the 
question.  I  afterward  discovered  that,  previous  to  that  time,  he  had 
written  an  exposition  of  the  bill — a  libel  upon  me — and  sent  it  off 
under  his  own  frank  ;  and  the  postponement  thus  obtained  by  my 
courtesy  was  in  order  to  take  a  week  to  circulate  the  libel.  I  do  not 
choose  to  take  my  own  time  in  that  way  again.  I  wish  to  meet 
these  misrepresentations  at  the  threshold.  If  I  am  right,  give  me  an 
opportunity  to  show  it.  If  iny  colleague  is  right,  I  desire  to  givo 
him  the  fullest  and  fairest  opportunity  to  show  it. 


STEPHEN     A.    DOUGLAS.  81 


TRUMBULL    REBUKED. 

I  desire  now  to  say  a  word  upon  another  point.  I  understand  that 
my  colleague  has  told  the  Senate,  as  being  a  matter  very  material  to 
tliis  issue,  that  he  comes  here  as  a  Democrat,  having  always  been  a 
Democrat.  Sir,  that  fact  will  be  news  to  the  Democracy  of  Illinois. 
I  undertake  to  assert  there  is  not  a  Democrat  in  Illinois  who  will 
not  say  that  such  a  statement  is  a  libel  upon  the  Democracy  of  that 
State.  When  he  was  elected,  he  received  every  Abolition  vote  in 
the  Legislature  of  Illinois.  He  received  every  Know  Nothing  vote 
in  the  Legislature  of  Illinois.  So  far  as  I  am  advised  and  believe,  he 
received  no  vote  except  from  persons  allied  to  Abolitionism  or  Know 
Nothingism.  He  came  here  as  the  Know-Nothing-Abolition  candi 
date,  in  opposition  to  the  united  Democracy  of  his  State,  and  to  the 
Democratic  candidate.  How  can  a  man  who  was  elected  as  an 
Abolition-Know  Nothing,  come  here  and  claim  to  be  a  Democrat,  in 
good  standing  with  the  Democracy  of  Illinois  ?  Sir,  the  Illinois  De 
mocracy  have  no  sympathies  or  alliances  with  Abolitionism  in  any 
of  its  forms.  They  have  no  connection  with  Know  Nothingism  in 
any  of  its  forms.  If  a  man  has  ever  been  a  Democrat,  and  becomes 
either  an  Abolitionist  or  Know  Nothing,  or  a  Free  Soiler,  he  ceases 
that  instant  to  be  a  Democrat  in  Illinois. 

Sir,  why  was  the  statement  of  my  colleague  being  a  Democrat 
made,  unless  to  convey  the  idea  that  the  Illinois  Democracy  would 
harbor  and  associate  with  a  Know  Nothing  or  an  Abolitionist  ?  Sir, 
we  do  no  such  thing  in  Illinois.  There  is  a  high  wall  and  a  deep 
ditch  between  the  national  Democracy  of  that  State,  including  the 
old  national  Whigs,  on  the  one  side,  and  all  Know  Nothing  and  Abo* 
lition  organizations  on  the  other.  I  can  say  to  senators  that  Know 
Nothingism  and  Abolitionism  in  Illinois  are  one  and  the  same  thing. 
Every  Know  Nothing  lodge  there  adopted  the  Abolition  creed,  and 
every  Abolition  society  supported  the  Know  Nothing  candidates. 
It  may  be  different  in  the  South  ;  but  in  the  Northwest,  and  espe 
cially  in  Illinois,  a  Know  Nothing  or  an  Abolitionist  means  a 
Kebublican.  My  colleague  is  the  head  and  front  of  Bepubli- 
canism  in  Illinois  in  opposition  to  Democracy.  You  might  as  well 
call  the  distinguished  senator  from  New  York  (Mr.  Seward),  or  the 
member  from  Massachusetts  (Mr.  Sumner),  or  any  other  leader 
of  the  Eepublican  forces,  a  Democrat,  as  to  call  my  colleague  a 
Democrat.  Why  has  that  assertion  been  brought  into  this  debate  ? 
Did  it  prove  that  my  report  was  wrong  ?  Did  it  prove  that  it  was 
courteous  to  make  an  assault  on  that  report  in  my  absence  ? 

On  the  17th  of  March,  Mr.  Douglas  reported  from  the 
Committee  on  Territories,  "  A  bill  to  authorize  the  People 

4* 


82  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

of  the  Territory  of  Kansas  to  fdf  m  a  Constitution  and  State 
government,  preparatory  to  their  admission  into  the  Union 
when  they  have  the  requisite  population." 

On  the  20th  of  March,  Mr.  Douglas  addressed  the  Senate 
in  support  of  this  bill,  and  in  reply  to  the  tirade  of  Mr. 
Trumbull.  In  this  speech,  he  vindicates  his  report ;  shows 
that  the  report  of  Mr.  Collamer  keeps  out  of  sight  the  mate 
rial  facts  of  the  case  ;  and  proves  that  it  was  the  design  of 
the  reckless  leaders  of  the  Freesoil  party,  to  produce  a  con 
flict  with  the  Territorial  government.  He  defends  the  Mis- 
isourians  from  the  charge  of  invading  and  conquering  Kansas, 
and  proves  that  the  whole  responsibility  of  all  the  disturb 
ances  in  Kansas,  rests  upon  the  Massachusetts  Emigrant  Aid 
Society.  When  he  reached  the  concluding  paragraph  of  his 
remarks,  he  turned  to  where  Trumbull  uneasily  sat,  and  fix 
ing  upon  him  his  eagle  eye,  pronounced  in  a  clear  and  sonor 
ous  voice,  and  in  emphatic  tones,  those  words  referring  to 
the  certainty  of  the  fact  that  even  in  the  United  States,  the 
traitor's  doom  would  fall  upon  the  traitor's  head.  Trumbull 
turned  pale,  and  his  head  sank  upon  his  breast.  He  felt 
that  he  was  convicted. 

The  speech  will  be  found  in  a  subsequent  part  of  this 
work. 

REPUBLICAN   HYPOCKISY   EXPOSED. 

Mr.  Collamer  made  a  speech  upon  the  same  subject,  on  the 
3d  of  April,  and  on  the  4th,  Mr.  Douglas  responded.  Mr. 
Collamer  had  labored  hard  to  show  that  the  free  State  men 
in  Kansas  were  not  such  bad  fellows  after  all.  But  in  this 
speech  Mr.  Douglas  shows  by  incontestable  evidence,  their 
blood-thirsty  nature,  their  determination  to  conquer  all  who 
did  not  believe  with  them,  and  to  resist  the  constituted 
authorities  to  a  bloody  issue,  and  their  preparations  of  arms 
and  munitions  of  war,  with  which  to  resist.  He  raises  the 


, 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  83 

specious  veil  of  "peaceful  emigration,"  which  concealed  the 
movements  of  the  free  State  party  in  Kansas,  and  exposes  the 
secret  springs  by  which  they  were  really  actuated,  showing 
that  they  were  guilty  of  rebellion  and  treason.  This  speech 
is  a  full  and  complete  exposition  of  the  real  history  of  Kan 
sas,  up  to  that  time.  The  reader  will  not  fail  to  observe, 
toward  the  conclusion  of  the  speech,  how  completely  Mr. 
Douglas  exposes  the  hypocrisy  of  the  Black  Republican 
party ;  and  how  conclusively  he  shows  the  hollowness  and 
insincerity,  as  well  as  the  inconsistency  and  heartlessness,  of 
their  professions  of  regard  for  the  negro.  Strong  in  the 
consciousness  of  the  rectitude  of  the  principles  of  the  Demo 
cratic  party,  he  delineates,  with  withering  scorn,  the  incon 
sistent  and  jarring  elements  that  make  up  the  creed  of 
the  Republican  faith,  and  dares  the  leaders  of  that  party 
to  the  fight.  Like  some  experienced  general,  at  the  head  of 
a  numerous  and  well  disciplined  army,  an  army  which  loves, 
idolizes,  and  trusts  in  their  leader — knowing  his  own  strength 
and  confident  of  victory  because  he  knows  that  his  cause  is 
just,  he  throws  down  the  gage  of  battle,  and  challenges 
the  onset  of  the  opposing  squadrons.  The  leaders  of  the 
Republican  party  quailed  before  him  in  the  Senate  ;  as  that 
party  itself  afterward  quailed  under  the  irresistible  charge  of 
the  Democracy.  The  speech  will  be  found  in  a  subsequent 
part  of  this  work. 

On  the  30th  of  June,  Mr.  Douglas  reported  to  the  Senate 
on  several  bills  submitted  for  the  pacification  of  Kansas,  as 
also  most  decidedly  against  Mr.  Seward's  proposition  tc 
admit  Kansas  as  a  State  under  the  bogus  "  Topeka  "  consti 
tution. 

Mr.  Seward  then  moved  to  strike  out  the  whole  of  Mr. 
Douglas'  bill,  and  insert  instead,  one  admitting  Kansas  under 
the  Topeka  constitution.  This  motion  was  defeated — ayes  11, 
nays  36. 


84:  THE      LIFE     AND      SPEECHES      OF 

The  bill  was  now  reported  as  amended,  and  the  amend 
ment  made  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  concurred  in.  Tho 
bill  was  then  (8  A.M.  on  the  3d,  the  Senate  having  been  in 
session  all  night),  ordered  to  be  engrossed  and  read  a  third 
time ;  and,  on  the  question  of  its  final  passage  the  vote  stood 
— yeas  33,  nays  12 — as  follows  : 


YEAS— Messrs.  Allen,  Bayard,  Bell  of  Tennessee,  Benjamin,  Biggs,  Bigler, 
Bright,  Brodhead,  Brown,  Cass,  Clay,  Crittenden,  Douglas,  Evans,  Fitzpatrick, 
Geyer,  Hunter,  Iverson,  Johnson,  Jones  of  Iowa,  Mallory,  Pratt,  Pugh,  Reid, 
Sebastian,  Slidell,  Stuart,  Thompson  of  Kentucky,  Toombs,  Toucey,  Weller, 
Wright,  and  Yulee— 33. 

NAYS— Messrs.  Bell,  of  New  Hampshire,  Collamer,  Dodge,  Durkee,  Fessen- 
den,  Foot,  Foster,  Hale,  Seward,  Trumbull,  Wade,  and  Wilson— 12. 


So  the  bill  passed  the  Senate.  We  give  it,  in  the  shape  in 
which  it  was  sent  to  the  House,  in  a  subsequent  part  of  this 
work. 

On  the  8th  of  July,  Mr.  Douglas  reported  back  from  the 
Committee  on  Territories  the  House  bill  to  admit  Kansas  as  a 
State,  with  an  amendment  striking  out  all  after  the  enacting 
clause,  and  inserting  instead  the  Senate  bill  (No  356)  just 
referred  to. 

Mr.  Trumbull,  of  Illinois,  moved  that  all  the  Territorial 
laws  of  Kansas  be  repealed  and  the  Territorial  officers  dis 
missed  :  rejected — yeas  12,  nays  32. 

Mr.  Collamer  of  Vermont,  proposed  an  amendment,  pro 
hibiting  slavery  in  all  that  portion  of  the  Louisiana  purchase 
north  of  36°  30'  not  including  the  Territory  of  Kansas. 
rejected — yeas  12,  nays  30. 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  85 

The  amendment  reported  by  Mr.  Douglas  (i.  e.  the  Senate 
bill  as  passed)  was  then  agreed  to — yeas  32,  nays  13 — and  the 
bill  in  this  shape  passed  the  Senate.  But  the  House  of 
Representatives,  where  the  majority  was  composed  of  a 
fusion  of  Republicans,  Abolitionists,  Know  Nothings, 
Freesoilers,  Freethinkers,  Free-lovers,  and  Freemonters, 
refused  to  act  upon  it,  or  to  concur  in  it,  and  the  session 
terminated  without  the  concurrence  of  the  House. 


OF   THE 

f  UNIVERSITY   ) 


86  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 


CHAPTER  XI. 

RETROSPECTIVE. 

A.  Retrospect — Origin  and  Causes  of  Disagreement  with  the  President- 
Net  Provoked  by  Mr.  Douglas — Mr.  Buchanan  owes  his  Nomination  at 
Cincinnati  to  Mr.  Douglas — Telegraphic  Dispatches — His  Efforts  to  Elect 
Mr.  Buchanan  in  1856 — Speech  at  Springfield  in  1857,  defending  the 
Administration — President's  Instructions  to  Governor  Walker — Consti 
tution  to  be  Submitted — Executive  Dictation — Differences  of  Opinion 
tolerated  on  all  Subjects  except  Lecompton — Mr.  Douglas'  Propositions 
for  Adjustment — Resolutions  of  Illinois  Democracy — Controversy  termi 
nated  by  the  English  Bill — War  Renewed  by  the  Administration — Coali 
tion  between  the  Federal  Officeholders  and  the  Abolitionists — Mr.  Dou 
glas'  last  Speech  in  the  Senate  preparatory  to  Illinois  Canvass. 

IN  order  that  the  reader  may  appreciate  the  nature  and  im 
portance  of  the  issues  involved  in  the  memorable  senatorial 
canvass  in  Illinois  in  1858,  it  is  but  proper  we  should  state 
distinctly  the  origin  and  causes  of  the  unfortunate  disagree 
ment  between  Mr.  Douglas  and  the  administration  of  Mr. 
Buchanan. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  Mr.  Buchanan  owed  his  nomi 
nation  at  Cincinnati  to  the  direct  and  personal  interposition 
of  Mr.  Douglas.  But  for  the  telegraphic  dispatches  which 
he  sent  to  his  friends  urging  the  withdrawal  of  his  own  name 
and  the  unanimous  nomination  of  Mr.  Buchanan,  that  gentle 
man  could  never  have  received  the  nomination  by  a  two- 
thirds  vote,  according  to  the  rules  of  the  convention  and  the 
usages  of  the  party. 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  87 

These  dispatches  are  important,  serving  to  show  the  mag 
nanimity  of  Mr.  Douglas,  and  his  anxiety  to  promote  the 
union  and  harmony  of  the  Democratic  party. 

The  names  of  James  Buchanan,  Franklin  Pierce,  Lewis 
Cass,  and  Stephen  A.  Douglas,  were  put  in  nomination  by 
their  respective  friends.  There  were  296  votes  in  the  Con 
vention.  On  the  first  ballot  Buchanan  received  1351,  Pierce 
122|,  Douglas  33,  and  Cass  5.  Judge  Douglas'  votes  were 
from  the  following  States :  Ohio,  4  ;  Kentucky,  3  ;  Illinois, 
11  ;  Missouri,  9;  Iowa,  4 ;  Wisconsin,  2.  There  were  very  few 
changes  in  the  ballotings  until  after  the  fourteenth,  when 
Pierce  was  withdrawn.  The  two  succeeding  ballots  were 
about  the  same.  The  sixteenth  was  as  follows :  Buchanan, 
168  ;  Douglas,  122 ;  Cass,  6.  When  this  ballot  was  an 
nounced,  Col.  Richardson,  of  Illinois,  arose,  and  after  making 
a  short  explanatory  speech,  said  that  he  had  just  received  a 
dispatch  from  Judge  Douglas,  which  he  sent  to  the  chair  to 
be  read,  after  which,  he  said  he  would  withdraw  that  gentle 
man's  name  from  before  the  Convention.  This  dispatch  is 
so  characteristic  of  Senator  Douglas,  that  we  cannot  refrain 
from  reproducing  it  here.  Its  self-sacrificing  spirit,  its  con 
ciliatory  tone,  and  its  pure  Democracy,  commend  it  to  the 
attention  of  the  country  at  the  present  state  of  political 
affairs.  It  breathes  the  spirit  of  devotion  to  the  Democratic 
party  which  has  ever  characterized  the  public  life  of  its  great 
author.  It  applies  to  the  Presidential  Convention  system 
the  great  principle  for  which  his  whole  life  has  been  devoted 
—the  principle  that  the  majority  should  rule.  Let  it  be  re 
membered,  that  in  the  Cincinnati  Convention  he  would  not 
allow  his  name  to  be  used  one  moment  after  any  other  states 
man  had  received  a  majority  of  the  votes  !  But  here  is 
Judge  Douglas'  letter,  and  we  ask  for  it  the  carefu]  perusal 
of  every  Democrat  in  the  nation : 


88  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

WASHINGTON,  June  4, 1856. 

DEAE  SIR  :  From  the  telegraphic  reports  in  the  newspapers,  I  feai 
that  an  embittered  state  of  feeling  is  being  engendered  in  the  Con 
vention,  which  may  endanger  the  harmony  and  success  of  our  party. 
I  wish  you  and  all  my  friends  to  bear  in  mind  that  I  have  a  thou 
sand  fold  more  anxiety  for  the  triumph  of  our  principles  than  for 
my  own  personal  elevation. 

If  the  withdrawal  of  my  name  will  contribute  to  the  harmony  of 
our  party,  or  the  success  of  our  cause,  I  hope  you  will  not  hesitate 
to  take  the  step.  Especially  is  it  my  desire  that  the  action  of  the 
Convention  will  embody  and  express  the  wishes,  feelings,  and  prin 
ciples  of  the  Democracy  of  the  republic ;  and  hence,  if  Mr.  Pierce, 
or  Mr.  Buchanan,  or  any  other  statesman,  who  is  faithful  to  the 
great  issues  involved  in  the  contest,  shall  receive  a  majority  of  the 
Convention,  I  earnestly  hope  that  all  my  friends  will  unite  in  insur 
ing  him  two-thirds,  and  then  in  malting  his  nomination  unanimous. 
Let  no  personal  considerations  disturb  the  harmony  or  endanger  the 
triumph  of  our  principles. 

S.  A.  DOUGLAS. 

To  HON.  W.  A.  RICHARDSON,  Cincinnati,  0. 

The  reading  of  this  dispatch  was  interrupted  by  frequent 
and  tremendous  applause.  The  other  dispatches  are  as 
follows : 

June  5,  1856,  9  A.M. 

DEAR  SIR  :  I  have  just  read  so  much  of  the  platform  as  relates  to 
the  Nebraska  Bill  and  slavery  question.  The  adoption  of  that  noble 
resolution  by  a  unanimous  vote  of  all  the  States,  accomplishes  all  the 
objects  I  had  in  view  in  permitting  my  name  to  be  used  before  the 
convention.  If  agreeable  to  my  friends,  I  would  prefer  exerting  all 
my  energies  to  elect  a  tried  statesman  on  that  platform  to  being  the 
nominee  myself.  At  all  events  do  not  let  my  name  be  used  in  such 
manner  as  to  disturb  the  harmony  of  the  party  or  endanger  the  suc 
cess  of  the  work  so  nobly  begun.  S.  A.  DOUGLAS. 

HON.  W.  A.  RICHARDSON,  of  Illinois, 
Burnet  House,  Cincinnati,  Ohio. 

WASHINGTON,  June  5th — 9^  A.M. 

Mr.  Buchanan  having  received  a  majority  of  the  convention,  is,  in 
my  opinion,  entitled  to  the  nomination.  I  hope  my  friends  will  give 
effect  to  the  voice  of  the  majority  of  the  party. 

S.  A.  DOUGLAS. 

HOM.  W.  A.  RICHARDSON. 

(See  "Washington  Union,"  June  7th,  1856.  ) 

Many  of  Mr.  Douglas'  warmest  friends  complained  of  him 
bitterly  for  having  thus  withheld  his  own  name  and  sec'ired 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  89 

the  nomination  of  his  rival,  at  the  critical  moment,  when  it 
became  evident  the  latter  could  not  possibly  have  been  nomi 
nated  without  the  positive  and  efficient  aid  of  the  former ; 
and  this  withdrawal  in  favor  of  Mr.  Buchanan,  is,  at  this  time, 
used  in  some  quarters  as  a  point  of  objection  to  Mr.  Douglas' 
nomination  at  Charleston.  But  the  whole  political  course  of 
Mr.  Douglas,  for  a  quarter  of  a  century,  has  been  in  harmony 
with  the  sentiment  enunciated  and  enforced  in  those  de 
spatches,  that  he  felt  "  a  thousand  fold  more  interest  in  the 
success  of  the  principles  of  the  Democratic  party  than  in  his 
own  individual  promotion." 

Immediately  after  the  adjournment  of  the  convention,  Mr. 
Douglas  entered  the  canvass  with  that  energy  and  vigor  for 
which  he  is  so  remarkable,  and  it  is  but  fair  to  add  that  to  his 
herculean  efforts,  in  Illinois,  Indiana,  Pennsylvania,  and  other 
States  in  the  campaign  of  1856,  is  Mr.  Buchanan  indebted  for 
his  election,  more  than  to  any  other  man  living  or  dead. 

When  the  election  was  secured,  and  the  inauguration  had 
taken  place,  Mr.  Douglas  had  no  personal  favors  to  ask  of  the 
President  for  either  himself  or  friends,  and  hence  had  no 
grievances  to  complain  of  or  disappointments  to  resent. 
Before  he  left  Washington  for  his  home,  it  is  well  known  that 
he  was  personally  consulted  by  the  President,  and  approved 
of  the  policy  of  his  administration  in  regard  to  Kansas  affairs, 
to  be  promulgated  by  Governor  Walker  in  his  message  and 
address  to  the  people  of  that  Territory,  viz.,  that  the  consti 
tution  which  was  about  to  be  formed  at  Lecompton  should 
be  submitted  to  and  ratified  by  the  people,  at  a  fair  election 
to  be  held  for  that  purpose,  before  the  State  could  be  admitted 
into  the  Union. 

Subsequently,  when  Governor  Walker  was  on  his  way  to 
Kansas,  he  called  on  Judge  Douglas  at  Chicago  by  direction 
of  the  President,  as  he  himself  says,  and  read  to  him  the 
inaugural  address  which  he  was  to  publish  on  his  arrival  in 


90  THE     LIFE    AND     SPEECHES     OF 

the  Territory,  in  which  the  governor  stated  that  he  was 
authorized  by  the  President  and  his  cabinet  to  give  the  assur 
ance  that  he  and  they  would  oppose  the  admission  of  Kansas 
into  the  Union  as  a  State  under  any  constitution  which  was 
not  first  submitted  to  and  ratified  by  the  people. 

After  copying  his  instructions  from  the  President  in  favor 
of  the  submission  of  the  constitution  to  the  people,  Governor 
Walker  added  :  "  I  repeat,  then,  as  my  clear  conviction,  that 
unless  the  convention  submit  the  constitution  to  the  vote  of 
all  the  actual  resident  settlers  of  Kansas,  and  the  election  be 
fairly  and  justly  conducted,  the  constitution  will  be  and 
ought  to  be  rejected  by  Congress." 

In  this  interview,  Judge  Douglas  assured  Governor  Walker, 
as  he  had  previously  assured  the  President,  that  he  might 
rely  on  his  cordial  and  hearty  cooperation  in  carrying  out 
the  policy  that  Kansas  should  not  be  forced  into  the  Union 
with  any  constitution  which  had  not  been  previously  sub 
mitted  to  and  ratified  by  the  people  at  a  fair  election  regu 
larly  held  for  that  purpose. 

A  short  time  afterward,  June  12th,  1857,  Mr.  Douglas 
made  his  celebrated  Springfield  speech,  in  which  he  warmly 
defended  the  administration  of  Mr.  Buchanan,  commended 
his  territorial  policy,  and  predicted  for  him  a  successful  and 
brilliant  administration.  We  have  the  best  reasons  for  the 
assertion  that  his  friendly  relations  with,  and  kind  feelings 
toward  Mr.  Buchanan  continued  uninterrupted  and  undimin- 
ished  until  after  their  well-known  interview  in  Washington 
city,  about  the  first  of  December  of  that  year,  upon  the  ques 
tion  of  admitting  Kansas  into  the  Union  under  the  Lecompton 
constitution,  without  submitting  the  constitution  to  the  people 
for  ratification  or  rejection.  Mr.  Douglas  insisted  that  he 
was  bound  in  honor,  good  faith,  and  due  regard  for  the  fun 
damental  principles  of  all  free  government,  to  resist  the  mea 
sure  at  every  hazard  and  under  all  circumstances.  Here  we 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  91 

find  the  origin  and  sole  cause  of  the  disagreement  between 
the  President  and  Mr.  Douglas,  so  far  as  the  friends  of  the 
latter  have  ever  been  able  to  discover.  The  difficulty  was 
not  of  Mr.  Douglas'  own  seeking  or  procurement.  He  only 
claimed  that  so  far  as  he  was  concerned  it  was  his  right  and 
duty  to  carry  out  in  good  faith  the  policy  to  which  he,  Go 
vernor  Walker,  the  President,  and  every  member  of  his 
cabinet,  stood  publicly  and  irrevocably  pledged.  The  Presi 
dent  claimed  that  it  was  his  right  and  duty,  in  a  message  to 
Congress,  to  recommend  the  admission  of  Kansas  under  the 
Lecompton  constitution.  Mr.  Douglas  did  not  question  cither 
the  right  or  the  duty  of  the  President,  provided  "  he  thought 
the  Lecompton  constitution  was  the  act  and  deed  of  the  peo 
ple  of  Kansas,  and  a  fair  embodiment  of  their  will."  While 
conceding  to  the  President  entire  freedom  of  action  according 
to  his  sense  of  duty,  Mr.  Douglas  claimed  the  same  privilege 
for  himself,  as  a  senator  representing  a  sovereign  State. 

The  President,  however,  would  tolerate  no  difference  of 
opinion  among  friends  on  this  question.  Upon  the  tariff — 
upon  specific  and  ad  valorem  duties — upon  the  Pacific  Rail 
road — upon  the  Homestead  Bill — upon  the  Neutrality  Laws 
— and,  indeed,  on  any  and  every  other  question,  Democratic 
senators  and  representatives,  and  cabinet  officers,  were  at 
liberty  to  think  and  act  as  they  pleased,  without  impairing 
their  personal  or  political  relations  with  the  President.  But 
on  the  Kansas  question,  having  determined  to  abandon  the 
principles  and  reverse  the  policy  to  which  he  had  pledged 
the  administration  and  the  party,  he  regarded  Mr.  Douglas' 
refusal  to  follow  him  in  his  change  of  principles  and  policy  as 
a  serious  reflection  upon  his  own  conduct.  Ah1  freedom  of 
judgment  and  action  was  denied.  Implicit  obedience  to 
the  behests  of  the  President  was  demanded.  The  senator 
was  required  to  obey  the  mandate  of  the  Executive,  instead 
of  to  represent  the  will  of  his  constituency.  The  representa- 


92  THE      LIFE     AND      SPEECHES      OF 

tives  of  the  States  and  of  the  people  were  required  to  stir, 
render  their  convictions,  their  judgments  and  their  consciences 
to  the  Executive,  and  to  receive  instructions  from  him  instead 
of  them. 

These  were  the  terms  and  the  only  conditions  upon  which 
Mr.  Douglas  could  preserve  friendly  relations  with  the  Pre 
sident.  He  met  the  issue  with  characteristic  alacrity  and 
boldness.  He  denounced  the  Lecompton  constitution  in 
firm  but  respectful  terms,  not  because  it  provided  for  a  slave 
State,  but  because  it  was  not  the  act  and  deed  of  the  people 
of  Kansas,  and  did  not  reflect  their  will. 

Foreseeing  the  rent  the  agitation  of  this  unfortunate 
question  was  likely  to  make  in  the  Democratic  party,  and  the 
irreparable  damage  to  which  it  would  be  likely  to  lead,  Mr. 
Douglas  was  anxious  to  heal  the  breach  and  settle  the  diffi 
culty  on  any  fair  and  just  terms,  that  were  consistent  with 
fidelity  to  his  own  constituency,  and  to  those  principles  of 
popular  rights  and  self-government  to  which  he  was  so 
solemnly  pledged,  and  upon  which  he  believed  the  peace  and 
harmony  of  the  country  depended.  He  submitted  various 
propositions  in  a  spirit  of  conciliation  and  fraternal  feeling 
for  the  pacification  of  the  difficulty. 

He  proposed  to  refer  the  Lecompton  constitution  back  to 
the  people  of  Kansas,  for  their  adoption  or  rejection,  at  a 
fair  election,  to  be  held  in  pursuance  of  law  for  that  purpose, 
and  if  ratified  by  a  majority  of  the  legal  votes  cast  at  such 
election,  Kansas  was  to  be  declared  a  State  of  the  Union 
without  further  legislation. 

He  proposed  to  pass  an  act  of  Congress  authorizing  the 
Territorial  legislature  to  call  a  new  convention  and  form  a 
constitution,  and  submit  the  same  to  the  people  for  adoption 
at  the  polls,  and  if  ratified  at  such  election,  Kansas  should 
be  received  into  the  Union,  with  or  without  slavery,  as  such 
constitution  should  prescribe,  as  provided  in  the  case  of  Min« 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  93 

nesota,  to  which  the  President  had  referred  as  affording  an 
example  to  be  followed  in  all  future  cases  of  admission  of  new 
States. 

He  offered  to  accept  what  is  known  as  the  "  Crittenden- 
Montgomery  Amendment,"  as  a  satisfactory  solution  of  the 
question,  in  harmony  with  the  fundamental  principles  of 
self-government. 

And  finally,  he  proposed  a  general  law,  which  would  not 
only  settle  the  existing  difficulty,  but  prevent  all  future  con 
troversies  on  the  subject,  providing  that "  neither  Kansas  nor 
any  other  Territory  shall  be  admitted  into  the  Union  as  a 
State,  until  it  shall  have  been  ascertained,  by  a  legal  census, 
to  contain  population  requisite  for  a  member  of  Congress, 
according  to  the  existing  ratio  of  representation  for  the  time 
being  ;  and  that  the  example  of  the  Minnesota  case  shall  be  a 
rule  of  action  in  the  future,  as  recommended  in  the  Presi 
dent's  message." 

This  proposition  was  offered  substantially  at  a  later  period 
of  the  session  in  the  House,  by  General  Quitman,  of  Missis 
sippi,  who  intended  to  have  called  it  up  in  the  event  of  the 
failure  of  the  English  bill.  It  would  have  been  happy  for 
the  Democratic  party  and  the  country  had  it  been  accepted. 
Besides  thoroughly  uniting  the  party,  it  would  have  laid  the 
foundation  of  a  sound  and  healthy  principle  governing  the 
admission  of  new  States,  and  have  saved  the  present  Congress 
from  acting  on  the  Kansas  Wyandot  constitution. 

These  several  propositions  and  all  others  for  conciliation 
and  harmony,  were  unceremoniously  rejected  by  the  partisans 
of  the  President,  and  the  unconditional  submission  of  the 
rebels  demanded  under  the  penalty  of  having  all  their  friends 
removed  from  office  and  made  victims  of  Executive  ven- 
o-eance.  The  system  of  proscription  and  persecution  which 
followed  is  too  fresh  hi  the  public  mind  to  require  recapitu 
lation. 


94:  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

The  wisdom  and  forecast  evinced  by  Mr.  Douglas  in 
opposing  the  admission  of  Kansas  under  the  Lecompton  con 
stitution,  has  been  amply  vindicated  by  succeeding  events. 
The  immense  vote  by  which  it  was  rejected  when  submitted 
under  the  temptations  of  the  English  bill — the  subsequent 
confession  of  actors  in  the  fraudulent  voting — the  discovery 
of  the  bogus  election  returns — the  statements  of  Governor 
Denver,  and  other  well-authenticated  facts  and  circumstances 
attest  the  correctness  of  Mr.  Douglas'  position ;  while  the 
declaration  of  Senator  Hammond,  who  voted  for  the  mea 
sure,  that  "  the  constitution  ought  to  have  been  kicked  out 
of  Congress,"  and  the  high  repute  in  which  Governor  Wise 
and  other  leading  southern  statesmen  whfc  opposed  the 
project  enjoy  in  the  respect  and  confidence  of  the  Southern 
people,  clearly  indicate  that  their  "  sober  second  thought " 
does  justice  to  the  statesmanlike  view  which  Mr.  Douglas 
took  of  this  unfortunate  issue. 


RESOLUTIONS    OF   ILLINOIS    DEMOCRATIC   CONVENTION. 

Notwithstanding  the  ferocity  with  which  the  warfare  was 
continued  against  Mr.  Douglas  and  his  friends  during  the 
Lecompton  controversy,  all  fair-minded  men  took  it  for 
granted  that  hostilities  would  cease  with  the  settlement  of 
the  question  out  of  which  the  contest  arose.  Mr.  Douglas 
and  the  Illinois  Democracy  seem  to  have  entertained  this 
reasonable  expectation,  as  appears  from  the  proceedings  of 
the  Illinois  Democratic  State  Convention,  which  assembled  at 
Springfield,  on  the  21st  of  April,  1858,  for  the  nomination  of 
candidates  for  State  officers.  While  the  resolutions  were  ex 
plicit  and  firm  in  the  assertion  of  the  principles  on  which 
they  had  rejected  the  Lecompton  constitution,  they  were 
conciliating  in  spirit  and  respectful  in  language.  They  con 
tain  no  assault  ©n  the  President,  no  attack  upon  the  adminis- 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  95 

tration,  and  indulge  in  no  complaint  at  the  unprovoked,  and 
vindictive  warfare  which  had  been  waged  against  them. 
They  maintain  a  dignified  and  manly  silence,  a  generous 
forbearance  on  all  these  points,  with  a  view  to  the  preserva 
tion  of  the  organization,  the  usages,  and  the  integrity  of  the 
Democratic  party  upon  its  time-honored  principles,  as  enun 
ciated  in  the  Cincinnati  Platform.  The  resolutions  adopted 
by  the  Convention  were  introduced  into  the  Senate  by  Mr. 
Douglas  on  the  25th  of  April,  "AS  FURNISHING  THE  PLAT 
FORM  ON  WHICH  THE  ILLINOIS  DEMOCRACY  STAND,  AND  BY 
WHICH  I  MEAN  TO  ABIDE." 

They  were  as  follows :     . 

• 

Colonel  McClernand,  from  the  committee  to  prepare  solutions  for  the 
consideration  of  the  convention,  made  the  following  report;  which  was 
read,  and,  on  motion,  each  resolution  was  separately  read  and  unanimously 
adopted: 

1.  Resolved,  That  the  Democratic  party  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  through 
their  delegates  in  general  convention  assembled,  do  re-assert  and  declare 
the  principles  avowed  by  them  as  when,  on  former  occasions,  they  have 
presented  their  candidates  for  popular  suffrage. 

2.  Resolved,  That  they  are  unalterably  attached  to,   and  will  maintain 
inviolate,  the  principles  declared  by  the  national  convention  at  Cincinnati 
in  June,  1856. 

3.  Resolved,  That  they  avow,  with  renewed  energy,  their  devotion  to 
the  Federal  Union  of  the  United  States,  their  earnest  desire  to  avert  sec 
tional  strife,  their  determination  to  maintain  the  sovereignty  of  the  States, 
and  to  protect  every  State,  and  the  people  thereof,  in  all  their  constitu 
tional  rights. 

4.  Resolved,  That  the  platform  of  principles  established  by  the  national 
democratic  convention  at  Cincinnati  is  the  only  authoritative  exposition  of 
Democratic  doctrine,   and   they  deny  the  right  of  any  power  on  earth, 
except  a  like  body,  to  change  or  interpolate  that  platform,  or  to  prescribe 
new  or  different  tests ;  that  they  will  neither  do  it  themselres  nor  permit  it 
to  be  done  by  others,  but  will  recognize  all  men  as  democrats  who  stand 
by  and  uphold  Democratic  principles. 

6.  Resolved,  That  in  the  organization  of  States  the  people  have  a  right 
to  decide,  at  the  polls,  upon  the  character  of  their  fundamental  law,  and 


THE      LIFE     AND      SPEECHES      OF 

that  the  experience  of  the  past  year  has  conclusively  demonstrated  the 
wisdom  and  propriety  of  the  principle,  that  the  fundamental  law  under 
which  the  Territory  seeks  admission  into  the  Union  should  be  submitted 
to  the  people  of  such  Territory,  for  their  ratification  or  rejection,  at  a  fair 
election  to  be  held  for  that  purpose  ;  and  that,  before  such  Territory  is 
admitted  as  a  State,  such  fundamental  law  should  receive  a  majority  of  the 
legal  votes  cast  at  such  election;  and  they  deny  the  right,  and  condemn 
the  attempt,  of  any  convention,  called  for  the  purpose  of  framing  a  con 
stitution,  to  impose  the  instrument  formed  by  them  upon  the  people  against 
their  known  will. 

6.  Resolved,   That  a  fair  application  of  these  principles  requires   that 
the  Lecompton  constitution  should  be  submitted  to  a  direct  vote  of  the 
actual  inhabitants  of  Kansas,  so  that  they  may  vote  for  or  against  that 
instrument,  before  Kansas  shall  be  declared  one  of  the  States  of  this  Union ; 
and  until  it  shall  be  ratified  by  the  people  of  Kansas,  at  a  fair  election 
held  for  that  purpose,  the  Illinois  Democracy  are  unalterably  opposed  to 
the  admission  of  Kansas  under  that  constitution. 

7.  Resolved,   That  we  heartily  approve   arid    sustain  the  manly,   firm, 
patriotic,    and    democratic   position    of  S.  A.  Douglas,  Isaac  N.  Morris, 
Thomas  L.  Harris,    Aaron  Shaw,    Robert  Smith,    and  Samuel  S.  Marshall, 
the  Democratic  delegation  of  Illinois  in  Congress,  upon  the  question  of  the 
admission  of  Kansas  under  the  Lecompton  constitution  ;  and  that,  by  their 
firm  and  uncompromising  devotion  to  Democratic  principles,  and  to  the 
cause   of  justice,  right,  truth,  and  the  people,   they  have  deserved  our 
admiration,  increased,   if  possible,  our  confidence  in  their  integrity  and 
patriotism,  and  merited  our  warm  approbation,    our  sincere  and  hearty 
thanks,  and  shall  receive  our  earnest  support. 

8.  Resolved^    That    in    all  things  wherein  the  national   administration 
sustain  and  carry  out  the  principles  of  the  Democratic  party  as  expressed 
in  the  Cincinnati  platform,  and  affirmed  in  these  resolutions,  it  is  entitled 
to,  and  will  receive,  our  hearty  support. 

By  the  adoption  of  the  English  bill  a  few  days  afterward, 
the  Lecompton  controversy  was  at  an  end  so  far  as  Congress 
was  concerned.  By  that  act  the  question  was  banished  from 
the  halls  of  Congress  and  remanded  to  the  people  of  Kansas 
to  be  determined  at  an  election  to  be  held  on  the  first  Mon 
day  in  August,  1858. 

In  a  speech  in  the  Senate  after  the  passage  of  the  English 


STEP  HEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  97 

bill,  Mr.  Douglas  referred  to  the  Lecompton  controversy  as 
at  an  end — a  dead  issue  which  should  no  longer  distract  and 
divide  the  Democratic  party,  in  these  words  : 

But  when  the  bill  became  a  law,  the  whole  question  was  remanded  to 
Kansas,  to  be  decided  at  an  election,  which  has  been  fixed  for  the  first 
Monday  in  August.  Whichever  way  the  people  of  Kansas  may  decide  the 
question  at  that  election  will  be  final  and  conclusive.  If  they  reject  the 
proposition  submitted  by  Congress,  the  Lecompton  constitution  is  dead, 
and  there  is  an  end  of  the  controversy.  If,  on  the  contrary,  they  accept 
the  'proposition,'  Kansas,  from  that  moment,  becomes  a  State  of  the 
Union,  and  thus  the  controversy  terminates.  Whether  they  shall  accept 
or  reject  the  proposition  is  a  question  for  the  people  of  Kansas  to  decide 
for  themselves,  and  with  which  neither  Congress  nor  the  people  of  the 
several  States,  nor  any  person,  official  or  otherwise,  outside  of  that  Terri 
tory,  has  any  right  to  interfere.  Hence,  the  Lecompton  controversy  is  at 
an  end ;  for  all  men,  of  all  parties,  must  be  content  with  and  abide  by 
whatever  decision  the  people  of  Kansas  may  make. 


NO   POINT    OF    DIFFERENCE    NOW    BETWEEN"   DEMOCRATS. 

And  again,  in  the  same  speech,  Mr.  Douglas  said : 

Under  these  circumstances  the  question  naturally  arises,  what  con 
troverted  principle  is  there  left  for  Democrats  to  differ  and  divide  about  ? 

In  the  first  place,  we  all  agree,  not  only  Democrats,  but  men  of  all  par 
ties,  that  whatever  decision  the  people  of  Kansas  may  make  at  the  election, 
on  the  first  Monday  in  August  must  be  final  and  conclusive. 

Now,  if  we  can  agree,  as  I  have  always  avowed  my  willingness  to  do, 
to  sustain  President  Buchanan's  recommendation,  that  in  all  future  cases 
the  constitution  shall  be  submitted  to  the  people,  as  was  required  in  the 
Minnesota  case,  all  matters  of  dispute  and  controversy  will  be  at  an  end, 
and  our  Territorial  policy  will  be  firmly  placed  on  a  wise  and  just  basis. 

Whatever  justification  or  excuse  may  be  urged  for  the  war 
fare  upon  Mr.  Douglas  and  his  friends  during  the  Lecompton 
controversy,  no  patriotic  reason  can  be  assigned  after  the 
passage  of  the  English  bill  and  the  adoption  of  the  magnani- 

5 


98  THE     L  I  B^  E     AND     S  P  E  E  C  II  E  S     OF 

mous  and  conciliating  resolutions  of  the  Illinois  State  conven 
tion,  for  forming  a  coalition  in  that  State  with  the  Abolition 
ists  to  defeat  the  regular  Democratic  nominee  for  State  offi 
cers,  members  of  the  legislature,  congressmen,  and  a  United 
States  senator,  and  filling  their  places  with  abolitionists.  No 
other  reason  can  be  assigned  for  keeping  up  the  warfare  after 
the  question  had  been  finally  settled  than  an  insatiable  desire 
for  revenge.  No  administration  can  be  justified  in  dividing 
and  destroying  the  party  by  which  it  was  elevated  to  power 
upon  the  plea  of  resentment  for  real  or  imaginary  grievances 
growing  out  of  a  past  political  issue.  The  coalition  between 
the  Republicans  and  the  federal  officeholders  in  Illinois,  for 
the  purpose  of  electing  Mr.  Lincoln  to  the  Senate  in  the  place 
of  Mr.  Douglas,  by  violating  all  the  usages  and  bolting  the 
regular  nomination  of  the  Democratic  party,  must  form  a 
dark  page  in  the  history  of  Mr.  Buchanan's  administration. 
Having  been  voted  down  and  defeated  by  overwhelming  ma 
jorities  in  the  regular  organization  in  every  county  in  the 
State  for  the  election  of  delegates  to  the  State  convention, 
the  federal  officeholders  called  a  new  convention  at  Spring 
field  on  the  9th  of  June,  1858,  and  formed  a  separate  ticket 
to  be  supported  by  the  bolters,  for  the  avowed  purpose  of 
defeating  the  regularly  nominated  ticket  of  the  party,  and 
securing  the  ascendency  of  Black  Republicanism  in  Illinois 
by  means  of  the  division  thus  produced  in  the  Democratic 
ranks. 

On  the  loth  of  June,  1858,  Mr.  Douglas  made  a  speech  in 
the  Senate,  in  which  he  exposed  the  combination  between 
the  federal  officeholders  and  the  Abolitionists  in  Illinois,  and 
called  the  attention  of  the  Democratic  party  in  Congress, 
and  of  the  whole  country,  to  this  unholy  and  unnatural  alli 
ance  ;  and  after  showing  that  the  federal  officials  professed 
to  have  the  authority  of  the  President  and  his  cabinet  for  the 
course  they  were  pursuing,  said : 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  99 

A  refusal  to  disavow  the  authority,  after  a  full  knowledge  of  the  facts 
shall  have  been  brought  home  to  the  administration,  should,  of  course,  be 
regarded  and  treated  as  an  approval  and  indorsement  of  the  act  as  having 
been  done  by  authority 

I  intend  to  denounce  this  treason  to  the  Democratic  party;  this  system 
of  bolting  regular  Democratic  nominations— this  coalition  of  officeholders 
with  the  enemies  of  Democracy.  I  intend  to  denounce  it  in  every  part  of 
Illinois,  and  I  mean  to  hold  all  men  responsible  for  it,  who,  by  their  action, 
become  justly  responsible.  I  now  point  out  the  fact  that  a  conspiracy 
against  the  unity  and  integrity  of  the  Democratic  party  exists,  and  is  being 
executed  by  a  portion  of  the  federal  officeholders  in  Illinois,  who  profess  to 
be  acting  under  the  sanction  of  the  administration,  but  who,  in  my  opinion, 
are  acting  under  the  direction  of  a  small  squad  of  selfish  and  unscrupulous  pol 
iticians  here,  who  care  less  for  the  present  than  for  the  next  administration. 
I  am  as  confident  that  the  Democracy  of  the  whole  Union  will  visit  the  con 
spirators  with  condemnation  when  the  facts  are  fully  understood,  as  I  am  now 
assured  that  the  movement  itself  is  disapproved  and  condemned  by  a  large 
majority  of  the  Democrats  in  both  houses  of  Congress.  All  good  Demo- 
'crats,  all  fair-minded  men  of  every  party,  will  unite  in  denouncing  such  an 
unscrupulous  alliance  between  the  leaders  of  the  Republican  party  and  that 
portion  of  the  officeholders  who  receive  orders  from  the  Danite  chief. 
What  is  the  issue  now  pending  in  Illinois  ?  What  is  the  inducement  to  the 
great  struggle  for  which  the  Republican  leaders  and  their  allies  are  now 
preparing  ?  The  motive  cannot  be  disguised,  nor,  indeed,  is  there  much 
effort  to  conceal  it.  The  object  of  this  combination  is  to  strike  down  and 
crush  out  the  Democratic  delegation  in  the  two  houses  of  Congress,  and 
the  Democratic  party  in  Illinois,  which  has  unanimously  indorsed  their 
course  in  State  convention,  for  having  acted  fully  up  to  their  conscientious 
convictions  in  carrying  out  in  good  faith  the  great  principle  of  self-govern 
ment,  in  its  application  to  Kansas.  This  is  the  extent  of  our  offending. 
For  this  offence  we  are  to  be  pursued  and  hunted  down  by  an  unscrupu 
lous  coalition.  The  Republican  leaders,  with  all  the  machinery  of  their 
party  organization  in  motion,  are  fighting  us  with  more  fierceness,  and,  I 
may  add,  with  more  ferocity,  than  they  ever  did  on  any  former  occasion. 
They  go  into  the  battle  with  more  energy  and  confidence,  relying  for  suc 
cess  solely  upon  the  aid  which  may  be  rendered  them  by  the  bolting  office 
holders  in  dividing  the  Democratic  party. 

It  is  natural  that  the  Republican  leaders  should  feel  great  anxiety  to  1mm- 
ble  and  defeat  the  Democracy  of  Illinois.  They  are  restive  under  the  re 
flection  that  Illinois  is  the  only  northern  State  which  never  struck  her  nag 
to  the  enemies  of  the  Democracy  at  a  Presidential  election.  While  every 


100  THE     LIFE     AND      SPEECHES     OF 

other  northern  State  has,  at  some  time,  under  some  momentary  panic  or 
fanatical  excitement,  struck  her  flag  and  surrendered  to  the  enemy,  Illinois 
never !  Pennsylvania  has,  on  more  than  one  occasion,  abandoned  the 
Democratic  party,  and  secured  the  election  of  an  opposition  President. 
New  York  has  done  the  same  thing  frequently  ;  Ohio  often  ;  Indiana  sev 
eral  times  ;  and  so  with  each  State  in  turn,  leaving  Illinois  standing  bravely 
alone,  a  solitary  exception  among  her  northern  sisters.  Now,  it  is  pro 
posed,  in  view  of  these  facts,  to  humble  that  gallant  State,  and  make  her 
trail  her  glorious  old  flag  in  the  dust,  and  strike  her  ever-victorious  colors 
to  an  allied  army,  composed  of  the  Republican  organization  and  the  bolting 
officeholders  under  a  Democratic  administration  ! 

CONSTITUTION   FOB    MINNESOTA.* 

The  3d  Session  of  the  34th  Congress  assembled  in  Decem 
ber,  1856.  One  of  the  most  important  acts  of  this  session 
was  the  passage  of  a  bill  to  authorize  the  people  of  the  Ter 
ritory  of  Minnesota  to  form  a  constitution  and  State  govern 
ment,  preparatory  to  their  admission  into  the  Union  on  an 
equal  footing  with  the  original  States.  In  the  debate  on  this 
bill,  on  the  21st  of  February,  1857,  Mr.  Douglas  said  . 

The  organic  act  creating  the  Territory  of  Minnesota  many  years 
since  provided  that : 

"  Every  free  white  male  inhabitant  above  the  age  of  twenty-one  years,  who 
shall  have  been  a  resident  of  the  said  Territory  at  the  time  of  the  passage  of 
this  act,  shall  be  entitled  to  vote  at  the  first  election,  and  shall  be  eligible  to 
any  office  in  the  said  Territory  ;  but  the  qualifications  of  voters  and  of  holding 
office  at  all  subsequent  elections  shall  be  such  as  shall  be  subscribed  by  the 
Legislative  Assembly :  Provided,  That  the  right  of  suffrage  and  of  holding 
office  shall  be  exercised  only  by  citizens  of  the  United  States  and  those  who 
have  declared  on  oath  their  intention  to  become  such,  and  shall  have  taken  an 
oath  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  the  provisions  of 
this  act." 

That  was  the  organic  law  of  the  Territory.  Under  that  law  the 
Territorial  legislature  have  prescribed  the  qualifications  of  voters. 
The  present  bill  provides  that  the  legal  voters  of  Minnesota  may 
assemble  and  elect  delegates  to  a  convention  to  form  a  constitution 
and  State  government  for  admission  into  the  Union,  leaving  the 
qualifications  of  voters  in  the  Territorv  for  this  purpose  precisely 
what  they  have  been  ever  since  the  Territory  was  organized,  and  as 
they  are  now  fixed  by  law.  I  see  no  reason  wliy  we  should  change 

*  Chronologically,  the  conclusion  of  this  chapter  belongs  elsewhere  It 
will  be  arranged  in  a  subsequent  edition. 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  101 

the  existing  law  of  Minnesota  on  that  point  for  this  one  election, 
when  there  is  no  pretence  that  any  evil  consequences  have  grown 
out  of  the  exercise  of  the  elective  franchise  under  the  present  law. 
If  my  friend  from  North  Carolina  could  show  me  that  any  injurious 
consequences  had  grown  out  ~of  the  law  of  Minnesota  fixing  the 
qualifications  of  voters,  there  would  be  an  argument  in  favor  of  the 
ctiange ;  but  there  is  no  objection  on  that  score  ;  no  consideration 
of  that  kind  has  been  urged.  The  amendment,  therefore,  is  only  to 
carry  out  a  theory  of  the  senator,  and  not  to  remedy  any  practical 
existing  evil  in  the  Territory. 

My  friend  from  North  Carolina  is  entirely  mistaken  in  the  suppo 
sition  that  it  has  been  the  uniform  practice  in  laws  enabling  Terri 
tories  to  become  States,  to  restrict  the  right  of  voting  to  citizens  of 
the  United  States.  I  have  sent  for  the  laws,  and  will  present  them 
if  it  be  necessary,  in  the  course  of  the  discussion,  to  show  that  he  is 
entirely  mistaken  in  that  respect.  The  rule  is  rather  the  reverse,  if 
there  be  any  rule  on  the  subject.  The  foot  is,  that  there  has  been  a 
variety  of  laws  on  that  point.  In  some  Territories  where  there  was 
no  contest  about  it,  the  right  was  confined  to  citizens  of  the  United 
States ;  in  others,  all  the  inhabitants  possessing  certain  qualifications 
were  allowed  to  vote.  In  all  the  North  western  Territory,  in  Ohio, 
Indiana,  Illinois,  Michigan,  and  Wisconsin,  aliens,  under  certain  con 
ditions,  were  permitted  to  vote,  not  only  while  those  States  were 
Territories,  but  when  they  became  States ;  and  this  provision  was 
not  peculiar  to  the  Northwestern  States,  as  has  been  supposed. 

My  friend  from  Alabama  is  mistaken  in  saying  that  it  has  not  been 
done  at  the  South.  I  remember  well  that  I  served  some  years  ago 
on  the  Committee  of  Elections  in  the  House  of  Representatives  when 
there  was  a  contested  seat  between  Mr.  John  "W.  Jones  and  Mr.  John 
M.  Botts ;  and  it  turned  out  that  Mr.  Jones  had  received  some  eighty- 
nine  votes,  I  think,  of  foreigners  unnaturalized  according  to  the  laws 
of  the  United  States,  but  who  were  legal  voters  according  to  the  laws 
of  Virginia.  There  certainly  was  a  class  of  persons  in  Virginia, 
who,  under  her  laws,  were  allowed  to  vote,  although  they  were  not 
naturalized  citizens  of  the  United  States,  and  they  did  vote  in  that 
election  between  Jones  and  Botts  under  the  law  of  Virginia,  author 
izing  them  to  become  voters,  although  they  were  not  citizens  of  the 
United  States  according  to  the  laws  of  the  United  States.  It  was 
under  some  special  law.  The  impression  is  on  my  mind1  firmly, 
because  I  was  on  the  committee  that  investigated  this  question. 

Virginia  prescribes  who  shall  be  citizens  of  Virginia,  and  in  some 
cases  has  not  confined  the  right  of  voting  to  citizens  of  the  United 
States.  That  is  just  what  Michigan  did  when  she  came  into  the 
Union  with  a  constitution  providing  that  all  citizens  of  the  United 
States  should  be  permitted  to  vote,  and  also,  all  other  persons  who 
were  inhabitants  of  the  State  at  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  the  con 
stitution.  By  that-constitution,  Michigan  made  those  other  inhabi 
tants  who  had  not  been  naturalized,  but  possessed  certain  specified 


102  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

qualifications,  citizens  of  the  State  of  Michigan,  although  they  were 
not  citizens  of  the  United  States.  That  is  precisely  what  we  did  in 
Illinois  under  the  old  constitution.  We  allowed  an  unnaturalized 
foreigner  who  possessed  certain  qualifications  to  vote  in  that  State, 
although  he  had  not  become  a  citizen  of  the  United  States ;  in  other 
words,  we  made  him  a  citizen  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  and  authorized 
him  to  vote  at  our  elections,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  he  had 
not  complied  with  the  law  of  Congress  in  regard  to  citizenship. 
That  is  all  Virginia  has  done,  and  I  believe  it  is  only  in  limited 
cases. 

But,  sir,  I  did  not  wish  to  open  a  debate  on  this  subject.  I 
referred  to  the  Virginia  case  only  for  illustration.  The  simple  ques 
tion  here  is,  shall  we  authorize  the  present  legal  voters  of  Minnesota 
to  vote  for  the  election  of  delegates  to  form  a  State  constitution  ?  I 
hope  the  amendment  will  not  be  adopted. 

I  appeal  to  the  Senate  not  to  go  into  a  political  discussion  upon 
aliens  and  Know  Nothingism,  and  other  questions,  on  these  measures, 
for  the  reason  that  we  are  near  the  end  of  the  session.  This  day  was 
set  apart  for  Territorial  business,  and  there  is  as  much  as  we  can  dis 
pose  of  if  we  confine  ourselves  to  the  bills  themselves,  without  these 
long  discussions.  I  appeal,  therefore,  to  the  Senate  to  allow  us  to 
have  a  vote.  This  question  is  well  understood  by  every  senator 
present.  It  has  been  thoroughly  discussed.  1  have  not  the  slightest 
idea  that  any  gentleman  can  have  his  opinions  changed,  or  his  stock 
of  knowledge  added  to  or  diminished  materially  by  a  discussion. 
The  only  effect  of  this  discussion  will  be  to  occupy  the  entire  day, 
and  compel  us  to  have  a  night  session,  or  else  oblige  us  to  lose  all 
these  Territorial  bills  for  to-day.  Of  course,  if  I  cannot  get  a  vote 
to-day,  I  shall  feel  compelled  to  press  these  measures  every  day  until 
I  can  get  a  vote.  I  refrain  from  replying  even  to  that  part  of  the 
argument  which  touched  my  own  State,  and  where  I  think  it  did  her 
injustice,  in  order  to  get  a  vote. 

As  I  do  not  wish  to  reply  to  my  friend,  I  desire  now  to  call  his 
attention  to  an  error  into  which  he  has  fallen.  He  overlooks  one 
clause  in  the  Indiana  and  Illinois  laws  to  which  he  has  referred.  I 
will  read  the  Illinois  law  : 

"  That  all  white  male  citizens  of  the  United  States  who  shall  have  attained 
to  the  age  of  twenty-one  years,  and  have  resided  in  said  Territory  six  months 
previous  to  the  day  of  election,  and  all  persons  having  in  other  respects  tho 
legal  qualifications  to  vote  for  a  representative  in  the  General  Assembly  of  said 
Territory,  be,  and  they  are  hereby,  authorized  to  vote  " — 

— at  the  election  to  form  a  State  constitution.  That  includes  inhabi 
tants  unnaturalized,  who,  by  the  Territorial  laws,  and  the  Ordinance 
of  1787,  were  authorized  to  vote.  If  the  senator  will  turn  to  the 
Indiana  law,  he  will  find  a  similar  clause  there  : 

"  That  all  male  citizens  of  the  United  States  who  shall  have  attained  the  age 
of  twenty-one  years,  and  resided  in  said  Territory  at  least  one  year  previous  to 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  103 

the  election,  and  shall  have  paid  a  country  tax,"  .  .  .  .  "  and  all  persons 
having,  in  other  respects,  the -legal  qualifications  to  vote  for  representatives  in 
the  General  Assembly  of  said  Territory,  be,  and  they  are  hereby,  authorized  to 
choose  representatives." 

The  organic  law  of  Indiana  Territory  was  the  Ordinance  of  1787 ; 
or  organic  law  of  Illinois  Territory  was  the  Ordinance  of  1787;  and 
so  with  all  the  northwestern  Territories.  The  Ordinance  of  1787, 
which  constituted  the  organic  law  of  those  Territories,  .expressly 
provided  that  citizens  of  the  different  States  residing  there  and  hav 
ing  a  certain  amount  of  property,  should  vote;  and  it  expressly 
authorized  unuaturalized  persons  to  vote,  as  well  as  naturalized 
citizens,  provided  they  owned  property.  If  my  friend  will  look  into 
the  matter,  he  will  find  that  there  is  no  question  that,  under  the 
organic  law  of  those  Territories,  unnaturalized  foreigners  could  and 
did  vote  while  they  were  Territories ;  and  then  the  acts  authorizing 
those  Territories  to  form  constitutions  and  State  governments,  pro 
vided  that  all  citizens  of  the  United  States  could  vote,  and  also,  all 
such  other  persons  as  were  qualified  to  vote  in  the  Territories  by 
existing  laws,  showing  clearly  that  there  was  an  express  recognition 
of  the  rights  of  unnaturalized  foreigners  to  vote  who  were  authorized 
to  vote  under  the  Territorial  laws.  That  brings  those  cases  exactly 
within  the  limits  of  the  bill  now  under  consideration. 


OPPOSITION    TO    MINNESOTA. 

The  bill  met  with  considerable  opposition  in  both  houses 
of  Congress.  In  the  Senate,  Mr.  Thompson,  of  Kentucky, 
made  a  most  remarkable  speech  against  it,  which  is  entirely 
too  rich  to  be  lost,  but  which  our  limits  preclude  our  giving 
here.  This  wras  on  the  24th  of  February;  and  in  reply 
to  it,  Mr.  Douglas  made  a  speech  which  we  give  in  a  subse 
quent  part  of  the  work. 

On  the  12th  of  June,  1857,  Mr.  Douglas  being  at  Spring 
field,  Illinois,  addressed  the  Grand  Jury  of  the  United  States 
Court,  at  their  request,  upon  the  affairs  of  Kansas  and  Utah, 
and  the  recently  decided  Dred  Scott  case.  The  reader  will 
observe  that  at  the  time  Mr.  Douglas  made  this  speech,  he 
had  no  doubt  but  that  President  Buchanan  would  remove 
Brigham  Young  and  all  his  followers  from  office,  would 
cause  a  searching  investigation  to  be  made  into  all  the  crimes 


104:  THE     LIFE     AND      SPEECHES      OF 

that  have  been  perpetrated  in  Utah,  and  would  execute  the 
Lows,  by  military  force  if  necessary.  No  temporizing  policy, 
no  half-way  measures,  says  Mr.  Douglas,  will  answer.  "  He 
would  first  repeal  the  organic  act,  absolutely  and  uncondi 
tionally,  blotting  out  of  existence  the  Territorial  government, 
and  bringing  Utah  under  the  sole  and  exclusive  jurisdiction 
of  the  United  States  government." 

No  man  can  fail  to  see  that  the  mode  of  grappling  with  the 
Utah  question  which  Mr.  Douglas  suggests,  is  the  only  way  in 
which  the  great  problem  of  "  What  is  to  be  done  with 
Utah  ?"  can  be  solved.  It  must  be  settled  in  the  way  he 
indicates,  sooner  or  later.  We  give  this  speech  in  a  subse- 
quent  part  of  the  work. 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  105 


CHAPTER  XII. 

THE   LECOMPTON    CONSTITUTION — BEITISH    AGGRESSION — 1858. 

New  Aspect  of  Affairs  at  the  Federal  Capitol — Mr.  Douglas  calls  on 
the  President  for  Information  in  regard  to  Affairs  in  Kansas — Great 
Speech  of  Mr.  Douglas  against  the  Lecompton  Constitution — Speech  in 
Favor  of  the  Crittenden-Montgomery  Amendment — Speech  on  the  Eng 
lish  Bill— Speech  in  favor  of  conferring  on  the  President  Power  to  pun 
ish  British  Outrages. 

THE   LECOMPTON    CONSTITUTION. 

THE  first  session  of  the  35th  Congress  met  in  December, 
1857.  On  the  8th,  President  Buchanan  sent  to  Congress  his 
first  annual  message.  On  the  9th,  Mr.  Douglas  addressed 
the  Senate  on  that  part  of  the  message  referring  to  affairs  in 
Kansas. 

This  speech  is  a  calm  and  clear  examination  of  the  question 
— whether  or  not  Kansas  could  be  received  into  the  Union, 
with  the  Lecompton  constitution. 

MR.  PRESIDENT  :  When  yesterday  the  President's  message  was  read  at 
the  clerk's  desk,  I  heard  it  but  imperfectly,  and  I  was  of  the  impression 
that  the  President  of  the  United  States  had  approved  and  indorsed  the 
action  of  the  Lecompton  convention  in  Kansas.  Under  that  impression,  I 
felt  it  my  duty  to  state  that,  while  I  concurred  in  the  general  views  of  the 
message,  yet,  so  far  as  it  approval  or  indorsed  the  action  of  that  conven 
tion,  I  entirely  dissented  from  it,  and  would  avail  myself  of  an  early  op 
portunity  to  state  my  reasons  for  my  dissent.  Upon  a  more  careful  and 
critical  examination  of  the  message,  I  am  rejoiced  to  find  that  the  Presi- 

5* 


10(»  THE      LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

dent  of  the  United  States  has  not  recommended  that  Congress  shall  pass  a 
law  to  receive  Kansas  into  the  Union  under  the  constitution  formed  at 
Lecompton.  It  is  true  that  the  tone  of  the  message  indicates  a  willingness 
on  the  part  of  the  President  to  sign  a  bill,  if  we  shall  see  proper  to  pass 
one,  receiving  Kansas  into  the  Union  under  that  constitution.  But,  sir,  it 
is  a  fact  of  great  significance,  and  worthy  of  consideration,  that  the  Presi 
dent  has  refrained  from  any  indorsement  of  the  convention,  and  from  any 
recommendation  as  to  the  course  Congress  should  pursue  with  regard  to 
the  constitution  there  formed. 

The  message  of  the  President  has  made  an  argument — an  unanswerable 
argument,  in  my  opinion— against  that  constitution,  which  shows  clearly, 
whether  intended  to  arrive  at  the  result  or  not,  that,  consistently  with  his 
views  and  his  principles,  he  cannot  accept  that  constitution.  He  has  ex 
pressed  his  deep  mortification  and  disappointment  that  the  constitution 
itself  has  not  been  submitted  to  the  people  of  Kansas  for  their  acceptance 
or  rejection.  He  informs  us  that  he  has  unqualifiedly  expressed  his  opi 
nions  on  that  subject  in  his  instructions  to  Governor  Walker,  assuming,  as 
a  matter  of  course,  that  the  constitution  was  to  be  submitted  to  the  people 
before  it  could  have  any  vitality  or  validity.  He  goes  further,  und  tells  us 
that  the  example  set  by  Congress  in  the  Minnesota  case,  by  inserting  a 
clause  in  the  enabling  act  requiring  the  constitution  to  be  submitted  to  the 
people,  ought  to  become  a  uniform  rule,  not  to  be  departed  from  hereafter 
in  any  case.  On  these  various  propositions  I  agree  entirely  with  the  Presi 
dent  of  the  United  States,  and  I  am  prepared  now  to  sustain  that  uniform 
rule  which  he  asks  us  to  pursue,  in  all  other  cases,  by  taking  the  Minnesota 
provision  as  our,  example. 

I  rejoice,  on  a  careful  perusal  of  the  message,  to  find  so  much  less  to 
dissent  from  than  I  was  under  the  impression  there  was.  from  the  hasty 
reading  and  imperfect  hearing  of  the  message  in  the  first  instance.  In 
effect,  he  refers  that  document  to  the  Congress  of  the  United  States — as 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  refers  it — for  us  to  decide  upon  it 
under  our  responsibility.  It  is  proper  that  he  should  have  thus  referred  it 
to  us  as  a  matter  for  Congressional  action,  and  not  as  an  administration  or 
executive  measure,  for  the  reason  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  says  that  "  Congress  may  admit  new  States  into  the  Union."  Hence 
we  find  the  Kansas  question  before  us  now,  not  as  an  administration  mea 
sure,  not  as  an  Executive  measure,  but  as  a  measure  coming  before  us  for 
our  free  action,  without  any  recommendation  or  interference,  directly  or 
isdirectly,  by  the  administration  now  in  possession  of  the  Federal  Govern- 


STEPHEN     A  .     DOUGLAS.  107 

ment.  Sir,  I  propose  to  examine  this  question  calmly  and  fairly,  to  see 
whether  or  not  we  can  properly  receive  Kansas  into  the  Union  with  the 
constitution  formed  at  Lecompton. 

The  President,  after  expressing  his  regret,  and  mortification,  and  dis 
appointment,  that  the  constitution  had  not  been  submitted  to  the  people 
in  pursuance  of  his  instructions  to  Governor  Walker,  and  in  pursuance  of 
Governor  Walker's  assurance  to  the  people,  says,  however,  that  by  the 
Kansas-Nebraska  Act  the  slavery  question  only  was  required  to  be  referred 
to  the  people,  and  the  remainder  of  the  constitution  was  not  thus  required 
to  be  submitted.  He  acknowledges  that,  as  a  general  rule,  on  general 
principles,  the  whole  constitution  should  be  submitted ;  but  according  to 
his  understanding  of  the  organic  act  of  Kansas,  there  was  an  imperative 
obligation  to  submit  the  slavery  question  for  their  approval  or  disapproval, 
but  no  obligation  to  submit  the  entire  constitution.  In  other  words,  he 
regards  the  organic  act,  the  Nebraska  Bill,  as  having  made  an  exception 
of  the  slavery  clause,  and  pi  tided  for  the  disposition  of  that  question  in 
a  mode  different  from  that  in  which  other  domestic  or  local,  as  contra 
distinguished  from  federal  questions,  should  be  decided.  Sir,  permit  me 
to  say,  with  profound  respect  for  the  President  of  the  United  States,  that 
I  conceive  that  on  this  point  he  has  committed  a  fundamental  error,  an 
error  which  lies  at  the  foundation  of  his  whole  argument  on  this  matter. 
I  can  well  understand  how  that  distinguished  statesman  came  to  fall  into 
this  error.  He  was  not  in  the  country  at  the  time  the  Nebraska  Bill  was 
passed ;  he  was  not  a  party  to  the  controversy  and  the  discussion  that  took 
place  during  its  passage.  He  was  then  representing  the  honor  and  the 
dignity  of  the  country  with  great  wisdom  and  distinction  at  a  foreign 
court.  Thus  deeply  engrossed,  his  whole  energies  were  absorbed  in  con 
ducting  great  diplomatic  questions  that  diverted  his  attention  from  the 
mere  territorial  questions  and  discussions  then  going  on  in  the  Senate  and 
the  House  of  Representatives,  and  before  the  people  at  home.  Under 
these  circumstances,  he  may  well  have  fallen  into  an  error,  radical  and 
fundamental  as  it  is,  in  regard  to  the  object  of  the  Nebraska  Bill  and  the 
principle  asserted  in  it. 

Now,  sir,  what  was  the  principle  enunciated  by  the  authors  and  supporters 
of  that  bill  when  it  was  brought  forward  ?  Did  we  not  come  before  the  coun 
try  and  say  that  we  repealed  the  Missouri  restriction  for  the  purpose  of 
substituting  and  carrying  out  as  a  general  rule  the  great  principle  of  self- 
government,  which  left  the  people  of  each  State  and  each  Territory  free 
to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject 


108  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

only  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  ?  In  support  of  that  proposi 
tion,  it  was  argued  here,  and  I  have  argued  it  wherever  I  have  spoken  in 
various  States  of  the  Union,  at  home  and  abroad,  everywhere  I  have  en 
deavored  to  prove  that  there  was  no  reason  why  an  exception  should  be 
made  in  regard  to  the  slavery  question.  I  have  appealed  to  the  people  if 
we  did  not  all  agree,  men  of  all  parties,  that  all  other  local  and  domestic 
questions  should  be  submitted  to  the  people.  I  said  to  them,  "  We  agree 
that  the  people  shall  decide  for  themselves  what  kind  of  a  judiciary  system 
they  will  have  ;  we  agree  that  the  people  shall  decide  what  kind  of  a  school 
system  they  will  establish  ;  we  agree  that  the  people  shall  determine  for 
themselves  what  kind  of  a  banking  system  they  will  have,  or  whether  they 
will  have  any  banks  at  all ;  we  agree  that  the  people  may  decide  for  them 
selves  what  shall  be  the  elective  franchise  in  their  respective  States  ;  they 
shall  decide  for  themselves  what  shall  be  the  rule  of  taxation  and  the 
principles  upon  which  their  finance  shall  be  regulated  ;  we  agree  that  they 
may  decide  for  themselves  the  relations  between  husband  and  wife,  parent 
and  child,  guardian  and  ward ;  and  why  should  we  not  then  allow  them  to 
decide  for  themselves  the  relations  between  master  and  servant  ?  Why 
make  an  exception  of  the  slavery  question  by  taking  it  out  of  that  great 
rule  of  self-government  which  applies  to  all  the  other  relations  of  life  ?" 
The  very  first  proposition  in  the  Nebraska  Bill  was  to  show  that  the  Mis 
souri  restriction,  prohibiting  the  people  from  deciding  the  slavery  question 
for  themselves,  constituted  an  exception  to  a  general  rule,  in  violation  of 
the  principle  of  self-government,  and  hence  that  that  exception  should  be 
repealed,  and  the  slavery  question,  like  all  other  questions,  submitted  to 
the  people  to  be  decided  for  themselves. 

Sir,  that  was  the  principle  on  which  the  Nebraska  Bill  was  defended  by 
its  friends.  Instead  of  making  the  slavery  question  an  exception,  it  re 
moved  an  odious  exception  which  before  existed.  Its  whole  object  was  to 
abolish  that  odious  exception,  and  make  the  rule  general,  universal,  in  its 
application  to  all  matters  which  were  local  and  domestic,  and  not  national 
or  federal.  For  this  reason  was  the  language  employed  which  the  Presi 
dent  has  quoted ;  that  the  eighth  section  of  the  Missouri  Act,  commonly 
called  the  Missouri  Compromise,  was  repealed  because  it  was  repugnant  to 
the  principle  of  non-intervention  established  by  the  Compromise  measures 
of  1850,  "  it  being  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  this  act  not  to  legislate 
slavery  into  any  Territory  or  State,  nor  to  exclude  it  therefrom,  but  to 
leave  the  people  thereof  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic 
/Qstitutioos  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of  the 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  109 

United  States."  We  repealed  the  Missouri  restriction  because  that  was 
confined  to  slavery.  That  was  the  only  exception  there  was  to  the  general 
principle  of  self-government.  That  exception  was  taken  away  for  the 
avowed  and  express  purpose  of  making  the  rule  of  self-government  general 
and  universal,  so  that  the  people  should  form  and  regulate  all  their  do 
mestic  institutions  in  their  own  way. 

Sir,  what  would  this  boasted  principle  of  popular  sovereignty  have  been 
worth,  if  it  applied  only  to  the  negro,  and  did  not  extend  to  the  white 
man?  Do  you  think  we  could  have  aroused  the  sympathies  and  the 
patriotism  of  this  broad  Republic,  and  have  carried  the  Presidential  election 
last  year  iu  the  face  of  a  tremendous  opposition,  on  the  principle  of  ex 
tending  the  rights  of  self-government  to  the  negro  question,  but  denying  it 
as  to  all  the  relations  affecting  white  men  ?  No,  sir.  We  aroused  the  | 
patriotism  of  the  country,  and  carried  the  election  in  defence  of  that  great  I 
principle,  which  allowed  all  white  men  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  I 
institutions  to  suit  themselves — institutions  applicable  to  white  men  as  well 
as  to  black  men— institutions  applicable  to  freemen  as  well  as  to  slaves — 
institutions  concerning  all  the  relations  of  life,  and  not  the  mere  paltry 
exception  of  the  slavery  question.  Sir,  I  have  spent  too  much  strength  and 
breath,  and  health,  too,  to  establish  this  great  -principle  in  the  popular 
heart,  now  to  see  it  fritted  away  by  bringing  it  down  to  an  exception  that 
applies  to  the  negro,  and  does  not  extend  to  the  benefit  of  the  white  man. 
As  I  said  before,  I  can  well  imagine  how  the  distinguished  and  eminent 
patriot  and  statesman  no\v  at  the  head  of  the  government,  fell  into  the 
error — for  error  it  is,  radical,  fundamental — and,  if  persevered  in,  subver 
sive  of  that  platform  upon  which  he  was  elevated  to  the  Presidency  of  the 
United  States. 

Then,  if  the  President  be  right  in  saying  that,  by  the  Nebraska  Bill,  the  I 
slavery  question  must  be  submitted  to  the  people,  it  follows  inevitably  that  I 
every  other  clause  of  the  Constitution  must  also  be  submitted  to  the  people.  / 
The  Nebraska  Bill  said  that  the  people  should  be  left  "  perfectly  free  to/ 
form  and  regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way  " — not  the! 
slavery   question,    not  the   Maine   liquor  law  question,  not   the   banking' 
question,  not  the  school    question,  not  the  railroad  question,  but  "  their 
domestic  institutions,"  meaning  each  and  all  the  questions  which  are  local, 
not  national — State,  not  federal.    I  arrive  at  the  conclusion  that  the  princi 
ples  enunciated  so  boldly,  and  enforced  with  so  much  ability  by  the  Presi 
dent  of  the  United  States,  require  us,  out  of  respect  to  him  and  the  plat 
form  on  which  he  was  elected,  to  send  this  whole  question  back  to  the 


110  THE     LIFE     AND      SPEECHES     OF 

people  of  Kansas,  and  enable  them  to  say  whether  or  not  the  constitution 
which  has  been  framed,  each  and  every  clause  of  it,  meets  their  approbation. 
The  President,  in  his  message,  has  made  an  unanswerable  argument  in 
favor  of  the  principle  which  requires  this  question  to  be  sent  back.  It  is 
stated  in  the  message,  with  more  clearness  and  force  than  any  language 
which  I  can  command;  but  I  can  draw  your  attention  to  it  and  refer  you 
to  the  argument  in  the  message,  hoping  that  you  will  take  it  as  a  part  of 
my  speech — as  expressing  my  idea  more  forcibly  than  I  am  able  to  express 
it.  The  President  says  that  a  question  of  great  interest,  like  the  slavery 
question,  cannot  be  fairly  decided  by  a  convention  of  delegates,  for  the 
reason  that  the  delegates  are  elected  in  districts,  and  in  some  districts  the 
delegate  is  elected  by  a  small  majority ;  in  others  by  an  overwhelming 
majority,  so  that  it  often  happens  that  a  majority  of  the  delegates  are  one  way, 
while  a  majority  of  the  people  are  the  other  way  ;  and  therefore  it  would 

Ibe  unfair  and  inconsistent  with  the  great  principle  of  popular  sovereignty, 
to  allow  a  body  of  delegates,  not  representing  the  popular  voice,  to 
establish  domestic  institutions  for  the  mass  of  the  people.  This  is  the 
President's  argument  to  show  that  you  cannot  have  a  fair  and  honest  de 
cision  without  submitting  it  to  the  popular  vote.  The  same  argument  is 
conclusive  with  regard  to  every  other  question  as  well  as  with  regard  to 
slavery. 

But,  Mr.  President,  it  is  intimated  in  the  message  that  although  it  was 
an  unfortunate  circumstance,  much  to  be  regretted,  that  the  Lecomptou 
convention  did  not  submit  the  constitution  to  the  people,  yet  perhaps  it 
may  be  treated  as  regular,  because  the  convention  was  called  by  a  Terri 
torial  legislature  which  had  been  repeatedly  recognized  by  the  Congress  of 
the  United  States  as  a  legal  body.  I  beg  senators  not  to  fall  into  an  error 
as  to  the  President's  meaning  on  this  point.  He  does  not  say,  he  does  not 
mean,  that  this  convention  had  ever  been  recognized  by  the  Congress  of 
the  United  States  as  legal  or  valid.  On  the  contrary,  he  knows,  as  we 
here  know,  that  during  the  last  Congress  I  reported  a  bill  from  the  Com 
mittee  on  Territories  to  authorize  the  people  of  Kansas  to  assemble  and 
Yorm  a  constitution  for  themselves.  Subsequently,  the  senator  from 
Georgia  (Mr.  Toombs)  brought  forward  a  substitute  for  my  bill,  which, 
after  having  been  modified  by  him  and  myself  in  consultation,  was  passed 
by  the  Senate.  It  is  known  in  the  country  as  "the  Toombs  Bill."  It 
authorizes  the  people  of  Kansas  Territory  to  assemble  in  convention  and 
form  a  constitution  preparatory  to  their  admission  into  the  Union  as  a 
State.  That  bill,  it  is  well  known,  was  defeated  in  the  House  of  Rcprc- 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  Ill 

sentatives.  It  matters  not,  for  the  purpose  of  this  argument,  what  was  the 
reason  of  its  defeat.  Whether  the  reason  was  a  political  one  ;  whether  it 
had  reference  to  the  then  existing  contest  for  the  Presidency  ;  whether  it 
was  to  keep  open  the  slavery  question  ;  whether  it  was  a  conviction  that 
the  bill  would  not  be  fairly  carried  out ;  whether  it  was  because  there 
were  not  people  enough  in  Kansas  to  justify  the  formation  of  a  State— no 
matter  what  the  reason  was,  the  House  of  Representatives  refused  to  pass 
that  bill,  and  thus  denied  to  the  people  of  Kansas  the  right  to  form  a  con 
stitution  and  State  government  at  this  time.  So  far  from  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States  having  sanctioned  or  legalized  the  convention  which 
assembled  at  Lecompton,  it  expressly  withheld  its  assent.  The  assent  has 
not  been  given,  either  in  express  terms  or  by  implication  ;  and  being  with 
held,  this  Kansas  constitution  has  just  such  validity  and  just  such  authority 
as  the  Territorial  legislature  of  Kansas  could  impart  to  it  without  the 
assent,  and  in  opposition  to  the  known  will  of  Congress. 

Now,  sir,  let  me  ask  what  is  the  extent  of  the  authority  of  a  Territorial 
legislature  as  to  calling  a  constitutional  convention  without  the  assent  of 
Congress?  Fortunately  this  is  not  a  new  question;  it  does  not  now  arise 
for  the  first  time.  When  the  Topeka  constitution  was  presented  to  the 
Senate  nearly  two  years  ago,  it  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Territo 
ries  with  a  variety  of  measures  relating  to  Kansas.  The  committee  made  a 
full  report  upon  the  whole  subject.  That  report  reviewed  all  the  irregular 
cases  which  had  occurred  in  our  history  in  the  admission  of  new  States. 
The  committee  acted  on  the  supposition  that  whenever  Congress  had 
passed  an  enabling  act  authorizing  the  people  of  a  Territory  to  form  a 
State  constitution,  the  convention  was  regular,  and  possessed  all  the 
authority  which  Congress  had  delegated  to  it ;  but  whenever  Congress  had 
failed  or  refused  to  pass  an  enabling  act,  the  proceeding  was  irregular  and 
void,  unless  vitality  was  imparted  to  it  by  a  subsequent  act  of  .Congress 
adopting  and  confirming  it.  The  friends  of  the  Topeka  constitution  insisted 
that  although  their  proceedings  were  irregular,  they  were  not  so  irregular 
but  that  Congress  could  cure  the  error  by  admitting  Congress  with  that 
constitution.  They  cited  a,  variety  of  cases,  amongst  others  the  Arkansas 
case.  In  my  report,  sanctioned  by  every  member  of  the  Committee  on 
Territories,  except  the  senator  from  Vermont  (Mr.  Collamer),  I  reviewed 
the  Arkansas  case  as  well  as  the  others,  and  affirmed  the  doctrine  esta 
blished  by  General  Jackson's  administration  and  enunciated  in  the  opinion 
of  Mr.  Attorney  General  Butler,  a  part  of  which  opinion  was  copied  into 
the  report  and  published  to  the  country  at  the  time. 


112  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

Now,  sir,  in  order  to  ascertain  what  we  understood  on  the  12th  of  March, 
1856 — little  more  than  a  year  and  a  half  ago — to  be  the  true  doctrine  on 
this  point,  let  me  call  your  attention  to  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Butler  in  the 
Arkansas  case.  The  governor  of  the  Territory  of  Arkansas  sent  a  printed 
address  to  President  Jackson,  in  which  he  stated  that  he  had  been  urged 
to  call  together  the  legislature  of  the  Territory  of  Arkansas,  for  the  pur 
pose  of  allowing  them  to  call  a  convention  to  form  a  constitution,  prepara 
tory  to  their  admission  into  the  Union  as  a  State.  The  governor  stated 
that,  in  his  opinion,  the  legislature  had  no  power  to  call  such  a  convention 
without  the  assent  of  Congress  first  had  and  obtained  ;  but  he  asked 
instructions  on  that  point.  The  President  referred  the  case  to  the  secre 
tary  of  state,  and  he  asked  for  the  advice  of  the  attorney  general,  whose 
opinion  was  given,  and  adopted,  as  the  plan  of  actioij,  and  communicated 
to  the  governor  of  Arkansas  for  his  instruction.  I  will  read  some  extracts 
from  that  opinion : 

"  Consequently,  it  is  not  in  the  power  of  the  General  Assembly  of  Arkansas  to  pass  any 
law  for  the  purpose  of  electing  members  to  form  a  constitution  and  State  government,  or 
to  do  any  other  act,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  create  such  new  government.  Every  such 
law,  even  though  it  were  approved  by  the  governor  of  the  Territory,  would  be  null 
and  void.  If  passed  by  them,  notwithstanding  his  veto,  by  a  vote  of  two-thirds  of  each 
branch,  it  would  still  be  equally  void. 

"  If  I  am  right  in  the  foregoing  opinion,  it  will  then  follow  that  the  course  of  the  gov 
ernor,  in  declining  to  call  together  the  Territorial  legislature  for  the  purpose  in  question, 
Avas  such  as  his  legal  duties  required ;  and  that  the  views  he  has  expressed  in  his  public 
address,  and  also  in  his  official  communication  to  yourself,  so  far  as  they  indicate  an 
intention  not  to  sanction  or  concur  in  any  legislative  or  other  proceedings  toward  the 
formation  of  a  State  government  until  Congress  shall  have  authorized  it,  are  also  cor 
rect." 

That  is  what  I  have  understood  to  be  the  settled  doctrine  as  to  the  au 
thority  of  a  Territorial  legislature  to  call  a  convention  without  the  consent 
of  Congress  first  had  and  obtained.  The  reasoning  is  very  clear  and  palpa 
ble.  A  Territorial  legislature  possesses  whatever  power  its  organic  act 
gives  it,  and  no  more.  The  organic  act  of  Arkansas  provided  that  the 
legislative  power  should  be  vested  in  the  Territorial  legislature,  the  same 
as  the  organic  act  "of  Kansas  provides  that  the  legislative  power  and  autho 
rity  shall  be  vested  in  the  legislature.  But  what  is  the  extent  of  that  legis 
lative  power?  It  is  to  legislate  for  that  Territory  under  the  organic  act, 
and  in  obedience  to  it.  It  does  not  include  any  power  to  subvert  the 
organic  act  under  which  it  was  brought  into  existence.  It  has  the  power 
to  protect  it,  the  power  to  execute  it,  the  power  to  carry  it  into  effect ;  but 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  113 

it  has  no  power  to  subvert,  none  to  destroy  ;  and  hence  that  power  can 
only  be  obtained  by  applying  to  Congress,  the  same  authority  which  cre 
ated  the  Territory  itself.  But  while  the  attorney  general  decided,  with 
the  approbation  of  the  administration  of  General  Jackson,  that  the  Terri 
torial  legislature  had  no  power  to  call  a  convention,  and  that  its  action  was 
void  if  it  did,  he  went  farther  : 

"  No  law  has  yet  been  passed  by  Congress  which  either  expressly  or  impliedly  gives  to 
the  people  of  Arkansas  the  authority  to  form  a  State  government." 

Nor  has  there  been  any  in  regard  to  Kansas.  The  two  cases  are  alike 
thus  far.  They  are  alike  in  all  particulars  so  far  as  the  question  involving 
the  legality  and  the  validity  of  the  Lecompton  convention  is  concerned. 
The  opinion  goes  on  to  say : 

"  For  the  reasons  above  stated,  I  am,  therefore,  of  opinion  that  the  inhabitants  of  that 
Territory  have  not  at  present,  and  that  they  cannot  acquire  otherwise  than  by  an  act 
of  Congress,  the  right  to  form  such  a  government." 

General  Jackson's  administration  took  the  ground  that  the  people  of 
Arkansas,  by  the  authority  of  the  Territorial  legislature,  had  not  the  power 
to  hold  a  convention  to  form  a  constitution,  and  could  not  acquire  it  from 
any  source  Avhatever  except  from  Congress.  While,  therefore,  the  legis 
lative  act  of  Arkansas  was  held  to  be  void,  so  far  as  it  assumed  authoritj 
to  authorize  the  calling  of  a  convention  to  form  a  constitution,  yet  they 
did  not  hold,  in  those  days,  that  the  people  could  not  assemble  and  frame 
a  constitution  in  the  form  of  a  petition.  I  will  read  the  rest  of  the  opinion, 
in  order  that  the  Senate  may  understand  precisely  what  was  the  doctrine 
on  this  subject  at  that  day,  and  what  the  committee  on  Territories  under 
stood  to  be  the  doctrine  on  this  subject  in  March,  1856,  when  we  put  forth 
the  Kansas  report  as  embodying  what  we  Nebraska  men  understood  to  be 
our  doctrine  at  time.  Here  it  is.  This  was  copied  into  that  report: 

"But  I  am  not  prepared  to  say  that  all  proceedings  on  this  subject,  on  the  part  of  the 
citizens  of  Arkansas,  will  be  illegal.  They  undoubtedly  possess  the  ordinary  privileges 
and  immunities  of  citizens  of  the  United  States.  Among  these  is  the  right  to  assemble 
and  to  petition  the  government  for  the  redress  of  grievances.  In  the  exercise  of  this  right, 
the  inhabitants  of  Arkansas  may  peaceably  meet  together  in  primary  assemblies,  or  in 
conventions  chosen  by  such  assemblies,  for  the  purpose  of  petitioning  Congress  to  abro 
gate  the  Territorial  government,  and  to  admit  them  into  the  Union  as  an  independent 
State.  The  particular  form  which  they  may  give  in  their  petition  cannot  be  material,  so 
long  as  they  confine  themselves  to  the  mere  right  of  petitioning,  and  conduct  all  their 
proceedings  in  a  peaceable  manner.  And  as  the  power  of  Congress  over  the  whole  sub 
ject  is  plenary  and  unlimited,  THEY  MAY  ACCEPT  ANY  CONSTITUTION,  HOWEVER  FRAMKD, 

WHICH   IN   THKIR  JUDGMENT   MEETS    THE   SENSK   OF   THE   PEOPLE   TO   BE   AFFECTED    BY   IT.      If, 


1 14  THE     LIFE     AND      SPEECHES     OF 

therefore,  the  citizens  of  Arkansas  think  proper  to  accompany  their  petition  with  a  writ 
ten  constitution,  framed  and  agreed  on  by  their  primary  assemblies,  or  by  a  convention 
of  delegates  chosen  by  such  assemblies,  I  perceive  no  legal  objection  to  their  power  to 
do  so,  nor  any  measures  which  may  be  taken  to  collect  the  sense  of  the  people  in  respect 
to  it ;  provided  always,  that  such  measures  be  commenced  and  prosecuted  in  a  peace 
able  manner,  in  strict  subordination  to  the  existing  Territorial  government.  AND  IN  KN- 

TIRE  SUBSERVIKNCY  TO  THE  POWKR  OF  CONGRESS  TO  ADOPT,  REJECT,  OR  DISREGARD  THEM, 
AT  THEIR  PLEASURE." 

While  the  legislature  of  Arkansas  had  no  power  to  create  a  convention 
to  frame  a  constitution,  as  a  legal  constitutional  body,  yet  if  the  people  chose 
to  assemble  under  such  an  act  of  the  legislature  for  the  purpose  of  petition 
ing  for  redress  of  grievances,  the  assemblage  was  not'  illegal ;  it  was  not 
an  unlawful  assemblage  ;  it  was  not  such  an  assemblage  as  the  military 
power  could  be  used  to  disperse,  for  they  had  a  right  under  the  Constitu 
tion  thus  to  assemble  and  petition.  But  if  they  assumed  to  themselves  the 
right  or  the  power  to  make  a  government,  that  assumption  was  an  act  of 
rebellion  which  General  Jackson  said  it  was  his  duty  to  put  down  with  the 
military  force  of  the  country. 

If  you  apply  these  principles  to  the  Kansas  convention,  you  find  that  it 
had  no  power  to  do  any  act  as  a  convention  forming  a  government ;  you 
find  that  the  act  calling  it  was  null  and  void  from  the  beginning;  you  find 
that  the  legislature  could  confer  no  power  whatever  on  the  convention. 
That  convention  was  simply  an  assemblage  of  peaceable  citizens,  under  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  petitioning  for  the  redress  of  grievances, 
and,  thus  assembled,  had  the  right  to  put  their  petition  in  the  form  of  a 
constitution  if  they  chose  ;  but  still  it  was  only  a  petition — having  the  force 
of  a  petition — which  Congress  could  accept  or  reject,  or  dispose  of  as  it 
saw  proper.  That  is  what  I  understand  to  be  just  the  extent  of  the  power 
and  authority  of  this  convention  assembled  at  Lecomptou.  It  was  not  an 
unlawful  assemblage  like  that  held  at  Topeka ;  for  the  Topeka  constitution 
was  made  in  opposition  to  the  Territorial  law,  and,  as  I  thought,  intended 
to  subvert  the  government  without  the  consent  of  Congress,  but,  as  con 
tended  by  their  friends,  not  so  intended.  If  their  object  was  to  subvert  it 
without  the  consent  of  Congress,  it  was  an  act  of  rebellion,  which  ought  to 
have  been  put  down  by  force.  If  it  was  a  peaceable  assemblage,  simply  to 
petition  and  abide  the  decision  of  Congress  on  the  petition,  it  was  not  an 
unlawful  assemblage.  I  hold,  however,  that  it  was  an  unlawful  assemblage. 
I  hold  that  this  Lecompton  convention  was  not  an  unlawful  assemblage  ; 
but,  on  the  other  hand,  I  hold  that  they  had  no  legal  power  and  authority 
to  establish  a  government.  They  had  a  right  to  petition  for  a  redress  of 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  115 

grievances.  They  had  a  right  in  that  petition  to  ask  ^for  the  change  of 
government  from  a  Territorial  to  a  State  government.  They  had  a  right  to 
ask  Congress  to  adopt  the  instrument  which  they  sent  to  us  as  their  constitu 
tion  ;  and  Congress,  if  it  thought  that  paper  embodied  the  will  of  the  peo 
ple  of  the  Territory,  fairly  expressed,  might,  in  its  discretion,  accept  it  as  a 
constitution,  and  admit  them  into  the  Union  as  a  State ;  or  if  Congress 
thought  it  did  not  embody  the  will  of  the  people  of  Kansas,  it  might  reject 
it ;  or'if  Congress  thought  it  was  doubtful  whether  it  did  embody  the  will 
of  the  people  or  not,  then  it  should  send  it  back  and  submit  it  to  the  peo 
ple  to  have  that  doubt  removed,  in  order  that  the  popular  voice,  whatever 
it  might  be,  should  prevail  in  the  constitution  under  which  that  people 
were  to  live. 

So  far  as  the  act  of  the  Territorial  legislature  of  Kansas  calling  this  con 
vention  was  concerned,  I  have  always  been  under  the  impression  that  it 
was  fair  and  just  in  its  provisions.  I  have  always  thought  the  people 
should  have  gone  together  en  masse  and  voted  for  delegates,  so  that  the 
voice  expressed  by  the  convention  should  have  been  the  unquestioned  and 
united  voice  of  the  people  of  Kansas.  I  have  always  thought  that  those 
who  staid  away  from  that  election  stood  in  their  own  light,  and  should 
have  gone  and  voted,  and  should  have  furnished  their  names  to  be  put  on 
the  registered  list,  so  as  to  be  voters.  I  have  always  held  that  it  was  their 
own  fault  that  they  did  not  thus  go  and  rote  ;  but  yet,  if  they  chose, 
they  had  a  right  to  stay  away.  They  had  a  right  to  say  that  that  conven 
tion,  although  not  aa  unlawful  assemblage,  is  not  a  legal  convention  to 
make  a  government,  and  hence  we  are  under  no  obligation  to  go  and  ex 
press  any  opinion  about  it.  They  had  a  right  to  say,  if  they  chose, 
"We  will  stay  away  until  we  see  the  constitution  they  shall  frame,  the 
petition  they  shall  send  to  Congress ;  and  when  they  submit  it  to  us  for 
ratification  we  will  vote  for  it,  if  Ave  like  it,  or  vote  it  down  if  we  do  not 
like  it."  If  say  they  had  a  right  to  do  either,  though  I  thought,  and  think 
yet,  as  good  citizens,  they  ought  to  have  gone  and  voted ;  but  that  was 
their  business  and  not  mine. 

Having  thus  shown  that  the  Convention  at  Lecompton  had  no  power,  no 
authority,  to  form  and  establish  a  government,  but  had  power  to  draft  a 
petition,  and  that  petition,  if  it  embodied  the  will  of  the  people  of  Kansas, 
ought  to  be  taken  as  such  an  exposition  of  their  will,  yet  if  it  did  not 
embody  their  will,  ought  to  be  rejected — having  shown  these  facts,  let  me 
proceed  and  inquire  what  was  the  understanding  of  the  people  of  Kansas, 
when  the  delegates  were  elected  ?  I  understand,  from  the  history  of  the 
transaction,  that  the  people  who  voted  for  delegates  to  the  Lecompton 


116  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

convention,  and  those  who  refused  to  vote — both  parties — understood  the 
Territorial  Act  to  mean  that  they  were  to  be  elected  only  to  frame  a  consti 
tution,  and  submit  it  to  the  people  for  their  ratification  or  rejection.  I  say 
that  both  parties  in  that  Territory,  at  the  time  of  the  election  of  delegates, 
so  understood  the  object  of  the  convention.  Those  who  voted  for  dele 
gates  did  so  with  the  understanding  that  they  had  no  power  to  make  a 
government,  but  only  to  frame  one  for  submission  ;  and  those  who  staid 
away  did  so  with  the  same  understanding. 

Xo\v  for  the  evidence.  The  President  of  the  United  States  tells  us,  in 
his  message,  that  he  had  unequivocally  expressed  his  opinions,  in  the  form 
of  instructions  to  Governor  Walker,  assuming  that  the  constitution  was  to 
be  submitted  to  the  people  for  ratification.  When  we  look  into  Governor 
Walker's  letter  of  acceptance  of  the  office  of  governor,  we  find  that  he 
stated  expressly  that  he  accepted  it  with  the  understanding  that  the  Pre 
sident  and  his  whole  cabinet  concurred  with  him,  that  the  constitution, 
when  formed,  was  to  be  submitted  to  the  people  for  ratification.  Then 
look  into  the  instructions  given  by  the  President  of  the  United  States, 
through  General  Cass,  the  secretary  of  state,  to  Governor  Walker,  and 
you  there  find  that  the  governor  is  instructed  to  use  the  military  power  to 
protect  the  polls  when  the  constitution  shall  be  submitted  to  the  people  of 
Kansas  for  their  free  acceptance  or  rejection.  Trace  the  history  a  little 
further,  and  you  will  find  that  Governor  Walker  went  to  Kansas  and  pro 
claimed,  in  his  inaugural,  and  in  his  speeches  at  Topeka  and  elsewhere, 
that  it  was  the  distinct  understanding,  not  only  of  himself,  but  of  those 
higher  in  power  than  himself — meaning  the  President  and  his  cabinet — 
that  the  constitution  was  to  be  submitted  to  the  people  for  their  free 
acceptance  or  rejection,  and  that  he  would  use  all  the  power  at  his  com 
mand  to  defeat  its  acceptance  by  Congress,  if  it  were  not  thus  submitted 
to  the  vote  of  the  people 

Mr.  President,  1  am  not  going  to  stop  and  inquire  how  far  the  Nebraska 
Bill,  which  said  the  people  should  be  left  perfectly  free  to  form  their  con 
stitution  for  themselves,  authorized  the  President,  or  the  cabinet,  or  Gov 
ernor  Walker,  or  any  other  Territorial  officer,  to  interfere  and  tell  the  Con 
vention  of  Kansas  whether  they  should  not  submit  the  question  to  the 
people.  I  am  not  going  to  stop  to  inquire  how  far  they  were  authorized 
to%do  that,  it  being  my  opinion  that  the  spirit  of  the  Nebraska  Bill  required 
it  to  be  done.  It  is  sufficient  for  my  purpose  that  the  administration  of 
the  Federal  Government  unanimously — that  the  administration  of  the  Ter 
ritorial  government,  in  all  its  parts,  unanimously  understood  the  Territorial 
law  under  which  the  convention  was  assembled  to  mean  that  the  constitu 
tion  to  be  formed  by  that  convention  should  be  submitted  to  the  people 


STEPHEN      A.     DOUGLAS.  117 

for  ratification  or  rejection  ;  and.  if  not  confirmed  bv  a  majority  of  the 
people,  should  be  null  and  void,  without  coming  to  Congress  for  ap 
proval. 

Xot  only  did  the  national  government  and  the  Territorial  government 
no  understand  the  law  at  the  time,  but,  as  I  have  already  stated,  the  people 
of  the  Territory  so  understood  it.  As  a  further  evidence  on  that  point,  a 
large  number,  if  not  a  majority,  of  the  delegates  were  instructed  in  the 
nominating  conventions  to  submit  the  constitution  to  the  people  for  ratifi 
cation.  I  know  that  the  delegates  from  Douglas  County,  eight  in  number, 
Mr.  Calhoun,  president  of  the  convention,  being  among  them,  were  not 
only  instructed  thus  to  submit  the  question,  but  they  signed  and  pub 
lished,  while  candidates,  a  written  pledge  that  they  would  submit  it  to  the 
people  for  ratification.  I  know  that  men,  high  in  authority,  and  in  the 
confidence  of  the  Territorial  and  national  government,  canvassed  every 
part  of  Kansas  during  the  election  of  delegates,  and  each  one  of  them 
pledged  himself  to  the  people  that  no  snap  judgment  was  to  be  taken  ; 
that  the  constitution  was  to  be  submitted  to  the  people  for  acceptance  or 
rejection  ;  that  it  would  be  void  unless  that  was  done  ;  that  the  adminis 
tration  would  spurn  and  scorn  it  as  a  violation  of  the  principles  on  which 
it  came  into  power,  and  that  a  Democratic  Congress  would  hurl  it  from 
their  presence  as  an  insult  to  Democrats  who  stood  pledged  to  see  the 
people  left  free  to  form  their  domestic  institutions  for  themselves. 

Not  only  that,  sir,  but  up  to  the  time  when  the  convention  assembled, 
on  the  1st  of  September,  so  far  as  I  can  learn,  it  was  understood  every 
where  that  the  constitution  was  to  be  submitted  for  ratification  or  reject- 
tion.  They  met,  however,  on  the  1st  of  September,  and  adjourned  until 
after  the  October  election.  I  think  it  was  wise  and  prudent  that  they 
should  thus  have  adjourned.  They  did  not  wish  to  bring  any  question 
into  that  election  which  would  divide  the  Democratic  party,  and  weaken 
our  chances  of  success  in  the  election.  I  was  rejoiced  when  I  saw  that 
they  did  adjourn,  so  as  not  to  show  their  hand  on  any  question  that  would 
divide  and  distract  the  party  until  after  the  election.  During  that  recess, 
while  the  convention  was  adjourned,  Governor  Ransom,  the  Democratic 
candidate  for  Congress,  running  against  the  present  delegate  from  that 
Territory,  was  canvassing  every  part  of  Kansas  in  favor  of  the  doctrine  of 
submitting  the  constitution  to  the  people,  declaring  that  the  Democratic 
party  were  in  favor  of  such  submission,  and  that  it  was  a  slander  of  the 
Black  Republicans  to  intimate  the  charge  that  the  Democratic  party  did 
not  intend  to  carry  out  that  pledge  in  good  faith.  Thus,  up  to  the  time 
of  the  meeting  of  the  convention,  in  October  last,  the  pretence  was  kept 
up,  the  piofession  was  openly  made,  and  believed  by  me,  and  [  thought 


118       THE   LIFE  AND  SPEECHES  OF 

believed  by  them,  that  the  convention  intended  to  submit  a  constitution 
to  the  people,  and  not  to  attempt  to  put  government  in  operation  without 
such  submission.  The  election  being  over,  the  Democratic  party  being 
defeated  by  an  overwhelming  vote,  the  Opposition  having  triumphed,  and 
got  possession  of  both  branches  of  the  legislature,  and  having  elected 
their  Territorial  de-legate,  the  convention  assembled,  and  then  proceeded 
to  complete  their  work. 

Now  let  us  stop  to  inquire  how  they  redeemed  the  pledge  to  submit  the 
constitution  to  the  people.  They  first  go  on  and  make  a  constitution. 
Then  they  make  a  schedule,  in  which  they  provide  that  the  constitution, 
on  the  21st  December — the  present  month — shall  be  submitted  to  all  the 
bond  fide  inhabitants  of  the  Territory  on  that  day,  for  their  free  acceptance 
or  rejection,  in  the  following  manner,  to  wit :  thus  acknowledging  that  they 
were  bound  to  submit  it  to  the  will  of  the  people,  conceding  that  they  had 
no  right  to  put  it  into  operation  without  submitting  it  to  the  people,  pro 
viding  in  the  instrument  that  it  should  take  effect  from  and  after  the 
date  of  its  ratification,  and  not  before  ;  showing  that  the  constitution 
derives  its  vitality,  in  their  estimation,  not  from  the  authoritv  of  the  con- 
Arention,  but  from  that  vote  of  the  people  to  which  it  was  to  be  submitted 
for  their  acceptance  or  rejection.  How  is  it  to  be  submitted  ?  It  shall  be 
submitted  in  this  form  :  "  Constitution  with  slavery,  or  constitution  with 
no  slavery."  All  men  must  vote  for  the  constitution,  whether  they  like  it 
or  not,  in  order  to  be  permitted  to  vote  for  or  against  slavery.  Thus  a 
constitution  made  by  a  convention  that  had  authority  to  assemble  and 
petition  for  a  redress  of  grievances,  but  not  to  establish  a  government — a 
constitution  made  under  a  pledge  of  honor  that  it  should  be  submitted  to 
the  people  before  it  took  effect ;  a  constitution  which  provides,  on  its  face, 
that  it  shall  have  no  validity  except  what  it  derives  from  such  submission 
— is  submitted  to  the  people  at  an  election  where  all  men  are  at  liberty  to 
come  forward  freely  without  hinderance  and  vote  for  it,  but  no  man  is 
permitted  to  record  a  vote  against  it. 

That  would  be  as  fair  an  election  as  some  of  the  enemies  of  Xapoleou 
attributed  to  him  when  he  was  elected  First  Consul.  He  is  said  to  have 
called  out  his  troops,  and  had  them  reviewed  by  his  officers  with  a  speech, 
patriotic  and  fair  in  its  professions,  in  which  he  said  to  them  :  "  Now,  my 
soldiers,  you  are  to  go  to  the  election  and  vote  freely  just  as  you  please. 
It'  you  vote  for  Xapoleon  all  is  well;  vote  against  him,  and  you  are  to  be 
instantly  shot."  That  was  a  fair  election.  (Laughter.)  This  election  is  to 
be  equally  fair.  All  men  in  favor  of  the  constitution  may  vote  for  it — all 
men  against  it  -hall  not  vote  at  all.  Why  not  let  them  vote  against  it? 
I  presume  you  have  asked  many  a  man  this  question.  I  have  asked  a  very 


STEPHEN      A.     DOUGLAS.  119 

large  number  of  the  gentlemen  \vlio  framed  the  constitution,  quite  a 
number  of  delegates,  and  a  still  larger  number  of  persons  who  are  their 
friends,  and  I  have  received  the  same  answer  from  every  one  of  them.  I 
never  received  any  other  answer,  and  I  presume  we  never  shall  get  any 
other  answer.  What  is  that  ?  They  say  if  they  allowed  a  negative  vote 
the  constitution  would  have  been  voted  down  by  an  overwhelming  major 
ity,  and  hence  the  fellows  shall  not  be  allowed  to  vote  at  all.  (Laughter.) 

Mr.  President,  that  may  be  true.  It  is  no  part  of  my  purpose  to  deny 
the  proposition  that  that  constitution  would  have  been  voted  down  if  sub 
mitted  to  the  people.  I  believe  it  would  have  been  voted  down  by  a  ma 
jority  of  four  to  one.  I  am  informed  by  men  well  posted  there — Demo 
crats — that  it  would  be  voted  down  by  ten  to  one ;  some  say  by  twenty  to 
one. 

But  is  it  a  good  reason  why  you  should  declare  it  in  force,  without  being 
submitted  to  the  people,  merely  because  it  would  have  been  voted  down 
by  five  to  one  if  you  had  submitted  it  ?  What  does  that  fact  prove  ?  Does 
it  not  show  undeniably  that  an  overwhelming  majority  of  people  of  Kansas 
are  unalterably  opposed  to  that  constitution  ?  Will  you  force  it  on  them 
against  their  will,  simply  because  they  would  have  voted  it  down  if  youhad 
consulted  them  ?  If  you  will,  are  you  going  to  force  it  upon  them  under 
the  plea  of  leaving  them  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic 
institutions  in  their  own  way  ?  Is  that  the  mode  in  which  I  am  called  upon 
to  carry  out  the  principle  of  self-government  and  popular  sovereignty  in 
the  Territories — to  force  a  constitution  on  the  people  against  their  will,  in 
opposition  to  their  protest,  with  a  knowledge  of  the  fact,  and  then  to  assign, 
as  a  reason  for  my  tyranny,  that  they  would  be  so  obstinate  and  so  per 
verse  as  to  vote  down  the  constitution  if  1  had  given  them  an  opportunity 
to  be  consulted  about  it  ? 

Sir,  I  deny  your  right  or  mine  to  inquire  of  these  people  what  their  ob 
jections  to  that  constitution  are.  They  have  a  right  to  judge  for  them 
selves  whether  they  like  or  dislike  it.  It  is  no  answer  to  tell  me  that  the 
constitution  is  a  good  one  and  unobjectionable.  It  is  not  satisfactory  to 
me  to  have  the  President  say  in  his  message  that  that  constitution  is  an 
admirable  one,  like  all  the  constitutions  of  the  new  States  that  have  been 
recently  formed.  Whether  good  or  bad,  whether  obnoxious  or  not,  is  none 
of  my  business  and  none  of  yours.  It  is  their  business,  and  not  ours.  I 
care  not  what  they  have  in  their  constitution,  so  that  it  suits  them  and 
does  not  violate  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  the  fundamental 
principles  of  liberty  upon  which  onr  constitutions  rest.  I  am  not  going  to 
argue  the  question  whether  the  banking  system  established  in  that  consti 
tution  ia  wise  or  unwise.  It  says  there  shall  be  no  monopolies,  but  there 


120  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

shall  be  one  bank  of  issue  in  the  State,  with  two  branches.  All  I  have  to  - 
say  on  that  point  is,  if  they  want  a  banking  system  let  them  have  it ;  if 
they  do  not  want  it,  let  them  prohibit  it.  If  they  want  a  bank  with  two 
branches,  be  it  so  ;  if  they  want  twenty,  it  is  none  of  my  business,  and  it 
matters  not  to  me  whether  one  of  them  shall  be  on  the  north  side  and  the 
other  on  the  south  side  of  Kaw  River,  or  where  they  shall  be. 

While  I  have  no  right  to  expect  to  be  consulted  on  that  point,  I  do  hold 
that  the  people  of  Kansas  have  the  right  to  be  consulted  and  to  decide  it, 
and  you  have  no  rightful  authority  to  deprive  them  of  that  privilege.  It 
is  no  justification,  in  my  mind,  to  say,  that  the  provisions  for  the  eligibility 
for  the  offices  of  governor  and  lieutenant-governor  requires  twenty  years' 
citizenship  in  the  United  States.  If  men  think  that  no  person  should  vote 
or  hold  office  until  he  has  been  here  twenty  years,  they  have  a  right  to 
think  so  ;  and  if  a  majority  of  the  people  of  Kansas  think  that  no  man  of 
foreign  birth  should  vote  or  hold  office  unless  he  has  lived  there  twenty 
years,  it  is  their  right  to  say  so,  and  I  have  no  right  to  interfere  with  them; 
it  is  their  business,  not  mine  ;  but  if  I  lived  there  I  should  not  be  willing 
to  have  that  provision  in  the  constitution  without  being  heard  upon  the 
subject,  and  allowed  to  record  my  protest  against  it. 

I  have  nothing  to  say  about  their  system  of  taxation,  in  which  they  have 
gone  back  and  resorted  to  the  old  exploded  system  that  we  tried  in  Illinois, 
but  abandoned,  because  we  did  not  like  it.  If  they  wish  to  try  it,  and  get 
tired  of  it,  and  abandon  it,  be  it  so  ;  but  if  I  were  a  citizen  of  Kansas,  I 
would  profit  by  the  experience  of  Illinois  on  that  subject,  and  defeat  it  if  I 
could.  Yet  I  have  no  objection  to  their  having  it  if  they  want  it;  it  is 
their  business,  not  mine. 

So  it  is  in  regard  to  the  free  negroes.  They  provide  that  no  free  negro 
shall  be  permitted  to  live  in  Kansas.  I  suppose  they  have  a  right  to  say  so 
if  they  choose;  but  if  I  lived  there,  I  should  want  to  vote  on  that  question. 
We,  in  Illinois,  provide  that  no  more  shall  come  there.  We  say  to  the 
other  States,  "  take  care  of  your  own  free  negroes  and  we  will  take  care  of 
ours."  But  we  do  not  say  that  .the  negroes  now  there  shall  not  be  per 
mitted  to  live  in  Illinois ;  and  I  think  the  people  of  Kansas  ought  to  have 
the  right  to  say  whether  they  will  allow  them  to  live  there,  and  if  they  are 
not  going  to  do  so,  how  they  are  to  dispose  of  them. 

So  you  may  go  on  with  all  the  different  clauses  of  the  constitution. 
They  may  be  all  right ;  they  may  be  all  wrong.  That  is  a  question  on  which 
my  opinion  is  worth  nothing.  The  opinion  of  the  wise  and  patriotic  chief 
magistrate  of  the  United  States  is  not  worth  anything  as  against  that  of 
the  people  of  Kansas,  for  they  have  a  right  to  judge  for  themselves;  and 
neither  Presidents,  nor  Senates,  nor  Houses  of  Representatives,  nor  any 


STEPHEN     A.    DOUGLAS.  121 

other  power  outside  of  Kansas,  has  a  right  to  judge  for  them.  Hence,  it 
is  no  justification,  in  my  mind,  for  the  violation  of  a  great  principle  of 
self-government,  to  say  that  the  constitution  you  are  forcing  on  them  ia 
not  particularly  obnoxious,  or  is  excellent  in  its  provisions. 

Perhaps,  sir,  the  same  thing  might  be  said  of  the  celebrated  Topeka 
constitution.  I  do  not  recollect  its  peculiar  provisions.  I  know  one  thing, 
we  Democrats,  we  Nebraska  men,  would  not  even  look  into  it,  to  see  what 
its  provisions  were.  Why  ?  Because  we  said  it  was  made  by  a  political 
party,  and  not  by  the  people  ;  that  it  was  made  in  defiance  of  the  authority 
of  Congress  ;  that  if  it  was  as  pure  as  the  Bible,  as  holy  as  the  ten  com 
mandments,  yet  we  would  not  touch  it  until  it  was  submitted  to  and  ratified 
by  the  people  of  Kansas,  in  pursuance  of  the  forms  of  law.  Perhaps  that 
Topeka  constitution,  but  for  the  mode  of  making  it,  would  have  been  un 
exceptionable.  I  do  not  know  ;  I  do  not  care.  You  have  no  right  to  force 
an  unexceptionable  constitution  on  a  people.  It  does  not  mitigate  the 
evil,  it  does  not  diminish  the  insult,  it  does  not  ameliorate  the  wrong,  that 
you  are  forcing  a  good  thing  on  them.  'I  am  not  willing  to  be  forced  to 
do  that  which  I  would  do  if  I  were  left  free  to  judge  and  act  for  myself. 
Hence,  I  assert  that  there  is  no  justification  to  be  made  for  this  flagrant 
violation  of  popular  rights  in  Kansas,  on  the  plea  that  the  constitution 
which  they  have  made  is  not  particularly  obnoxious. 

But,  sir,  the  President  of  the  United  States  is  really  and  sincerely  of  the 
opinion  that  the  slavery  clause  has  been  fairly  and  impartially  submitted 
to  the  free  acceptance  or  rejection  of  the  people  of  Kansas,  and  that,  inas 
much  as  that  was  the  exciting  and  paramount  question,  if  they  get  the 
right  to  vote  as  they  please  on  that  subject  they  ought  to  be  satisfied ;  and 
possibly  it  might  be  better  if  we  would  accept  it,  and  put  an  end  to  the 
question.  Let  me  ask,  sir,  is  the  slavery  clause  fairly  submitted,  so  tha, 
the  people  can  vote  for  or  against  it?  Suppose  I  were  a  citizen  of  Kansas, 
a::d  should  go  up  to  the  polls  and  say,  "I  desire  to  vote  to  make  Kansas 
a  slave  State,  here  is  my  ballot."  They  reply  to  me,  "  Mr.  Dougks,  just 
vote  for  that  constitution  first,  if  you  please."  "  Oh,  no  !"  I  answer,  "  1 
cannot  vote  for  that  constitution  conscientiously.  I  am  opposed  to  the 
clause  by  which  you  locate  certain  railroads  in  such  a  way  as  to  sacrifice 
my  county  and  my  part  of  the  State.  I  am  opposed  to  that  banking  sys 
tem.  I  am  opposed  to  this  Know  Nothing  or  American  clause  in  the  con- 
stitution  about  the  qualification  for  office.  I  cannot  vote  for  it."  Then 
they  answer,  "  You  shall  not  vote  on  making  it  a  slave  State."  I  then  say, 
"  I  want  to  make  it  a  free  State."  They  reply,  "  vote  for  that  constitu 
tion  first,  and  then  you  can  vote  to  make  it  a  free  State  ;  otherwise  you 
cannot."  Thus  they  disqualify  every  free  State  man  who  will  not  first  vote 

6 


122       THE  LIFE  AND   SPEECHES  OF 

for  the  constitution.  They  disqualify  every  slave  State  man  who  will  not  first 
vote  for  the  constitution.  No  matter  whether  or  not  the  voters  state  that  they 
cannot  conscientiously  vote  for  those  provisions,  they  reply,  "  You  cannot 
vote  for  or  against  slavery  here.  Take  the  constitution  as  we  have  made 
it,  take  the  elective  franchise  as  we  have  established  it,  take  the  banking  sys 
tem  as  we  have  dictated  it,  take  the  railroad  lines  as  we  have  located  them, 
take  the  judiciary  system  as  we  have  formed  it,  take  it  all  as  we  have  fixed 
it  to  suit  ourselves,  and  ask  no  questions,  but  vote  for  it,  or  you  shall  not 
vote  either  for  a  slave  or  free  State."  In  other  words,  the  legal  effect  of 
the  schedule  is  this :  all  those  who  are  in  favor  of  this  constitution  may 
vote  for  or  against  slavery,  as  they  please ;  but  all  those  who  are  against 
this  constitution  are  disfranchised,  and  shall  not  vote  at  all.  That  is  the 
mode  in  which  the  slavery  proposition  is  submitted.  Every  man  opposed 
to  the  constitution  is  disfranchised  on  the  slavery  cause.  How  many  are 
they?  They  tell  you  there  is  a  majority,  for  they  say  the  constitution 
will  be  voted  down  instantly,  by  an  overwhelming  majority,  if  you  allow  a 
negative  vote.  This  shows  that  a  majority  are  against  it.  They  disqua 
lify  and  disfranchise  every  man  who  is  against  it,  thus  referring  the  sla 
very  clause  to  a  minority  of  the  people  of  Kansas,  and  leaving  that  mino 
rity  free  to  vote  for  or  against  the  slavery  clause,  as  they  choose. 

Let  me  ask  you  if  that  is  a  fair  mode  of  submitting  the  slavery  clause  ? 
Does  that  mode  of  submitting  that  particular  clause  leave  the  people  per 
fectly  free  to  vote  for  or  against  slavery  as  they  choose  ?  Am  I  free  to 
vote  as  I  choose  on  the  slavery  question,  if  you  tell  me  that  I  shall  not 
vote  on  it  until  I  vote  for  the  Maine  liquor  law  ?  Am  I  free  to  vote  on  the 
slavery  question,  if  you  tell  me  that  I  shall  not  vote  either  way  until  I  vote 
for  a  bank?  Is  it  freedom  of  election  to  make  your  right  to  vote  upon 
one  question  depend  upon  the  mode  in  which  you  are  going  to  vote  on 
some  other  question  which  has  no  connection  with  it  ?  Is  that  freedom  of 
election  ?  Is  that  the  great  fundamental  principle  of  self-government,  for 
which  we  combined  and  struggled,  in  this  body  and  throughout  the  coun 
try,  to  establish  as  the  rule  of  action  in  all  time  to  come  ? 

The  President  of  the  United  States  has  made  some  remarks  in  his  mes 
sage  which  it  strikes  me  it  would  be  very  appropriate  to  read  in  this  con 
nection.  He  says: 

"  The  friends  and  supporters  of  the  Nebraska  and  Kansas  Act,  when  struggling  on  a 
recent  occasion  to  sustain  its  wise  provisions  before  the  great  tribunal  of  the  American 
people,  nerer  differed  about  its  true  meaning  on  this  subject.  Everywhere  throughout  the 
Union  they  publicly  pledged  their  faith  and  honor  that  they  would  cheerfully  submit  the 
question  of  slavery  to  the  decision  of  the  bond  fide  people  of  Kansas,  without  any  re- 
itriction  or  qualification  whatever.  All  were  cordially  united  upon  the  great  doctrine  of 
popular  sovereignty,  whieh  is  the  vital  principle  of  our  free  instiutioas." 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  123 

Mark  this  : 

"  Had  it  then  been  insinuated,  from  any  quarter,  that  it  would  have  been  a  sufficient 
compliance  with  the  requisitions  of  the  organic  law  for  the  members  of  a  convention, 
thereafter  to  be  elected,  to  withhold  a  question  of  slavery  from  the  people,  and  to  substi 
tute  their  own  will  for  that  of  a  legally  ascertained  majority  of  their  constituents,  thij 
would  have  been  instantly  rejected." 

Yes,  sir,  and  I  will  add  further,  had  it  been  then  intimated  from  any 
quarter,  and  believed  by  the  American  people,  that  we  would  have  sub 
mitted  the  slavery  clause  in  such  a  manner  as  to  compel  a  man  to  vote  for 
that  which  his  conscience  did  not  approve,  in  order  to  vote  on  the  slavery 
clause,  not  only  would  the  idea  have  been  rejected,  but  the  Democratic 
candidate  for  the  Presidency  would  have  been  rejected  ;.  and  every  man 
who  backed  him  would  have  been  rejected  too. 

The  President  tells  us  in  his  message  that  the  whole  party  pledged  our 
faith  and  our  honor  that  the  slavery  question  should  be  submitted  to  the 
people,  without  any  restriction  or  qualification  whatever.  Does  this  sche 
dule  submit  it  without  qualification  ?  It  qualifies  it  by  saying,  "  you  may 
vote  on  slavery  if  you  will  vote  for  the  constitution ;  but  you  shall  not  do 
so  without  doing  that."  That  is  a  very  important  qualification — a  qualifi 
cation  that  controls  a  man's  vote,  and  his  action,  and  his  conscience,  if  he 
is  an  honest  man — a  qualification  confessedly  in  violation  of  our  platform. 
We  are  told  by  the  President  that  our  faith  and  our  honor  are  pledged, 
that  the  slavery  clause  should  be  submitted  without  qualification  of  any 
kind  whatever ;  and  now  I  am  to  be  called  upon  to  forfeit  my  faith  and 
my  honor  in  order  to  enable  a  small  minority  of  the  people  of  Kansas  to 
defraud  the  majority  of  that  people  out  of  their  elective  franchise  ?  Sir, 
my  honor  is  pledged  ;  and  before  it  shall  be  tarnished,  I  will  take  what 
ever  consequences  personal  to  myself  may  come ;  but  never  ask  me  to  do 
an  act  which  the  President,  in  his  message,  has  said  is  a  forfeiture  of  faith, 
a  violation  of  honor,  and  that  merely  for  the  expediency  of  saving  the 
party.  I  will  go  as  far  as  any  of  you  to  save  the  party.  I  have  as  much 
heart  in  the  great  cause  that  binds  us  together  as  a  party  as  any  man  liv 
ing.  I  will  sacrifice  anything  short  of  principle  and  honor  for  the  peace  of 
the  party;  but  if  the  party  will  not  stand  by  its  principles,  its  faith,  its 
pledges,  I  will  stand  there,  and  abide  whatever  consequences  may  result 
from  the  position. 

Let  me  ask  you,  why  force  this  constitution  down  the  throats  of  the 
people  of  Kansas  in  opposition  to  their  wishes,  and  in  violation  of  our 
pledges.  What  great  object  is  to  be  attained?  Cui  Lono  ?  What  are 
you  to  gain  by  it?  Will  you  sustain  the  party  by  violating  its  principles? 


124  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

Do  you  propose  to  keep  the  party  united  by  forcing  a  division  ?  Stand  by 
the  doctrine  that  leaves  the  people  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate 
their  institutions  for  themselves  in  their  own  way,  and  your  party  will  be 
united  and  irresistible  in  power.  Abandon  that  great  principle,  and  the 
party  is  not  worth  saving,  and  cannot  be  saved,  after  it  shall  be  violated. 
I  trust  we  are  not  to  be  rushed  upon  this  question.  Why  shall  it  be  done  ? 
Who  is  to  be  benefited  ?  Is  the  South  to  be  the  gainer  ?  Is  the  North 
to  be  the  gainer  ?  Neither  the  North  nor  the  South  has  the  right  to  gain 
a  sectional  advantage  by  trickery  or  fraud. 

But  I  am  beseeched  to  wait  until  I  hear  from  the  election  on  the  21st 
of  December.  I  am  told  that  perhaps  that  will  put  it  all  right,  and  will 
save  the  whole  difficulty.  How  can  it  ?  Perhaps  there  may  be  a  large 
vote.  There  may  be  a  large  vote  returned.  (Laughter.)  But  I  deny 
that  it  is  possible  to  have  a  fair  vote  on  the  slavery  clause ;  and  I  say  that 
it  is  net  possible  to  have  any  vote  on  the  constitution.  Why  wait  for  the 
mockery  of  an  election  when  it  is  provided,  unalterably,  that  the  people 
cannot  vote — when  the  majority  are  disfranchised? 

But  I  am  told  on  all  sides,  "  Oh,  just  wait;  the  pro-slavery  clause  will 
be  voted  down."  That  does  not  obviate  any  of  my  objections ;  it  does  not 
diminish  any  of  them.  You  have  no  more  right  to  force  a  free  State  con 
stitution  on  Kansas  than  a  slave  State  constitution.  If  Kansas  wants  a 
slave  State  constitution  she  has  a. right  to  it;  if  she  wants  a  free  State 
constitution  she  has  a  right  to  it.  J  It  is  none  of  my  business  which  way 
the  slavery  clause  is  decided.  I  care  not  whether  it  is  voted  down  or 
voted  up.  Do  you  suppose,  after  the  pledges  of  my  honor  that  I  would 
go  for  that  principle  and  leave  the  people  to  vote  as  they  choose,  that  I 
would  now  degrade  myself  by  voting  one  way  if  the  slavery  clause  be 
voted  down,  and  another  way  if  it  is  voted  up?  I  care  not  how  that  vote 
may  stand.  I  take  it  for  granted  that  it  will  be  voted  out.  I  think  I  have 
seen  enough  in  the  last  three  days  to  make  it  certain  that  it  will  be  re 
turned  out,  no  matter  how  the  vote  may  stand.  (Laughter.) 

Sir,  I  am  opposed  to  that  concern  because  it  looks  to  me  like  a  system 
of  trickery  and  jugglery  to  defeat  the  fair  expression  of  the  will  of  the 
people.  There  is  no  necessity  for  crowding  this  measure,  so  unfair,  so  un 
just  as  it  is  in  all  its  aspects,  upon  us.  Why  can  we  not  now  do  what  we 
proposed  to  do  in  the  last  Congress?  We  then  voted  through  the  Senate  an 
enabling  act,  called  "  the  Toombs  Bill,"  believed  to  be  just  and  fair  in  all 
its  provisions,  pronounced  to  be  almost  perfect  by  the  senator  from  New 
Hampshire  (Mr.  Hale),  only  he  did  not  like  the  man,  then  President  of 
the  United  States,  ^ho  would  have  to  make  the  appointments.  Why  can 
we  not  take  that  bill,  and,  out  of  compliment  to  the  President,  add  to  it  a 


STEPHEN     A.    DOUGLAS.  12! 

clause  taken  from  the  Minnesota  Act,  which  he  thinks  should  be  a  general 
rule,  requiring  the  constitution  to  be  submitted  to  the  people,  and  pasa 
that  ?  That  unites  the  party.  You  all  voted,  with  me,  for  that  bill,  at  the 
last  Congress.  Why  not  stand  by  the  same  bill  now  ?  Ignore  Lecomptou, 
ignore  Topeka,  treat  both  those  party  movements  as  irregular  and  void ; 
pass  a  fair  bill — the  one  that  we  framed  ourselves  when  we  were  acting  as 
a  unit ;  have  a  fair  election,  and  you  will  have  peace  in  the  Democratic 
party,  and  peace  throughout  the  country,  in  ninety  days.  The  people 
want  a  fair  vote.  They  will  never  be  satisfied  without  it.  They  never 
should  be  satisfied  without  a  fair  vote  on  their  constitution. 

If  the  Toombs  Bill  does  not  suit  my  friends,  take  the  Minnesota  Bill  of 
the  last  session — the  one  so  much  commended  by  the  President  in  his 
message  as  a  model.  Let  us  pass  that  as  an  enabling  act,  and  allow  the 
people  of  all  parties  to  come  together  and  have  a  fair  vote,  and  I  will  go 
for  it.  Frame  any  other  bill  that  secures  a  fair,  honest  vote  to  men  of  all 
parties,  and  carries  out  the  pledge  that  the  people  shall  be  left  free  to  de 
cide  on  their  domestic  institutions  for  themselves,  and  I  will  go  with  you 
with  pleasure,  and  with  all  the  energy  I  may  possess.  But  if  this  consti- 
tion  is  to  be  forced  down  our  throats,  in  violation  of  the  fundamental  prin 
ciple  of  free  government,  under  a  mode  of  submission  that  is  a  mockery 
and  insult,  I  will  resist  it  to  the  last.  I  have  no  fear  of  any  party  associa 
tions  being  severed.  I  should  regret  any  social  or  political  estrangement, 
even  temporarily  ;  but  if  it  must  be,  if  I  cannot  act  with  you  and  preserve 
my  faith  and  my  honor,  I  will  stand  on  the  great  principle  of  popular  sov 
ereignty,  which  declares  the  right  of  all  people  to  be  left  perfectly  free  to 
form  and  regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way.  I  will 
follow  that  principle  wherever  its  logical  consequences  may  take  me,  and 
I  will  endeavor  to  defend  it  against  assault  from  any  and  all  quarters.  No 
mortal  man  shall  be  responsible  for  my  action  but  myself.  By  my  action 
I  will  compromit  no  man. 

[At  the  conclusion  of  the  honorable  gentleman's  speech,  loud  applause  and 
clapping  of  hands  resounded  through  the  crowded  galleries.] 


ME.  BUCHANAN'S  MESSAGE. 

Mr.  Douglas  had  previously  (Dec.  10)  given  notice  of  his 
intention  to  introduce  a  bill  to  enable  the  people  of  Kansas 
territory  to  hold  a  convention  to  form  a  constitution  and 
State  government,  preparatory  to  their  admission  into  tho 


126  THE      LIFE     AND     SPEECHES      OF 

Union  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original  States.  On  the 
18  h,  he  had  introduced  the  bill  (S.  No.  15),  which  was  read 
twice,  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Territories. 

Or  the  2d  of  February,  1858,  President  Buchanan  trans' 
raitted  to  Congress  a  copy  of  the  proposed  constitution  of 
Kansas,  framed  by  the  convention  at  Lccompton ;  accompanied 
by  a  message  from  himself,  from  which  we  make  the  following 
remarkable  extracts : 

The  Kansas  convention,  thus  lawfully  constituted,  proceeded  to 
frame  a  constitution;  and  having  completed  their  work,  tinally  ad 
journed  on  the  7th  day  of  November  last.  They  did  not  think  pro 
per  to  submit  the  whole  of  this  constitution  to  a  popular  vote ;  but 
they  did  submit  the  question  whether  Kansas  should  be  a  free  or  a 
slave  State  to  the  people.  No  person  thought  of  any  other  question. 
For  my  own  part,  when  I  instructed  Governor  Walker  in  general 
terms  in  favor  of  submitting  the  constitution  to  the  people,  I  had  no 
object  in  view  except  the  all-absorbing  question  of  slavery. 

I  then  believed,  and  still  believe,  that  under  the  organic  act  the 
Kansas  convention  were  bound  to  submit  this  all-important  question 
of  slavery  to  the  people.  It  was  never,  however,  my  opinion  that, 
independently  of  this  act,  they  would  have  been  bound  to  submit  any 
portion  of  the  constitution  to  a  popular  vote  in  order  to  give  it  va 
lidity. 

It  has  been  solemnly  adjudged,  by  the  highest  judicial  tribunal 
known  to  our  laws,  that  slavery  exists  in  Kansas  by  virtue  of  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States.  Kansas  is  therefore,  at  this  mo 
ment,  as  much  a  slave  State  as  Georgia  or  South  Carolina.  "Without 
this,  the  equality  of  the  Sovereign  States  composing  the  Union,  would 
be  violated,  and  the  use  and  enjoyment  of  a  Territory  acquired  by 
the  common  treasure  of  all  the  States,  would  be  closed  against  the 
people  and  the  property  of  nearly  half  the  members  of  the  Confeder 
acy.  Slavery  can,  therefore,  never  be  prohibited  in  Kansas,  except 
by  means  of  a  constitutional  provision,  and  in  no  other  manner  can 
this  be  obtained  so  promptly,  if  a  majority  of  the  people  desire  it,  as 
by  admitting  it  into  i  he  Union  under  its  present  constitution. 

On  the  other  hand,  should  Congress  reject  the  constitution,  under 
the  idea  of  affording  the  disaffected  in  Kansas  a  third  opportunity 
of  prohibiting  slavery  in  the  State,  which  they  might  have  done 
twice  before  if  in  the  majority,  no  man  can  foretell  the  consequences. 
If  Congress,  for  the  sake  of  these  men  who  refused  to  vote  for  dele 
gates  to  the  convention,  when  they  might  have  excluded  slaverv 
from  the  constitution,  and  who  afterward  refused  to  vote  on  the  21st 
December  last,  when  they  might,  as  they  claim,  have  stricken  slavery 
from  the  constitution,  should  now  reject  the  State,  because  slavery 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  127 

remains  on  the  constitution,  it  is  manifest  that  the  agitation  upon 
this  dangerous  subject  will  be  renewed  in  a  more  alarming  form  than 
it  has  ever  yet  assumed. 


DOUGLAS   INTEEKOGATES   THE   PRESIDENT. 

Two  days  after  the  reception  of  this  extraordinary  message 
by  Congress,  Senator  Douglas  called  on  the  President  for 
more  definite  information  regarding  the  facts  to  which  the 
message  alluded,  as  follows  : 

MR.  DOUGLAS — I  desire  to  offer  a  resolution,  calling  for  informa 
tion  which  will  hasten  our  action  on  the  Kansas  question.  I  will 
read  it  for  information ;  but  if  it  gives  rise  to  debate,  of  course  it  will 
go  over : 

Resolved— That  the  President  be  requested  to  furnish  all  the  information 
within  his  possession  or  control  on  the  following  points  : 

1.  The  return  and  votes  for  and  against  a  convention  at  an  election  held  in 
the  Territory  of  Kansas,  in  October,  1856. 

2.  The  census  and  registration  of  votes  in  the  Territory  of  Kansas,  under  the 
provisions  of  the  act  of  the  said  legislature,  passed  in  February,  1857,  provid 
ing  for  the  election  of  delegates  and  assembling  a  convention  to  frame  a  con 
stitution. 

3.  The  returns  of  an  election  held  in  said  Territory  on  the  21st  of  December, 
1857,  under  the  schedule  of  theLecompton  constitution,  upon  the  question  of 
"constitution  with  slavery"  or  "constitution  without  slavery." 

4.  The  returns  of  an  election  held  in  the  Territory  of  Kansas  on  the  4th  day 
of  January,  1858,  under  the  authority  of  a  law  passed  by  the  legislature  of  said 
Territory,  submitting  the  constitution  formed  by  the  Lecompton  convention  to 
a  vote  of  the  people  for  ratification  or  rejection. 

5.  The  returns  of  the  election  held  in  said  Territory  on  the  4th  day  of  Janu 
ary,  1858,  under  the  schedule  of  the  Lecompton  constitution,  for  Governor  and 
other  State  officers,  and  for  members  of  the  legislature,  specifying  the  names 
of  each  officer  to  whom  a  certificate  of  election  has  been  accorded,  and  the 
number  of  votes  cast  and  counted  for  each  candidate,  and  distinguishing  be 
tween  the  votes  returned  within  the  time  and  in  the  mode  provided  in  said 
schedule,  and  those  returned  subsequently  and  in  other  modes,  and  stating 
whether  at  either  of  said  elections  any  returns  of  votes  were  rejected  in  con 
sequence  of  not  having  been  returned  in  time,  or  to  the  right  officer,  or  in  pro 
per  form,  or  for  any  other  cause,  stating  specifically  for  what  cause. 

6.  All  correspondence  between  any  of  the  Executive  departments  and  Se 
cretary  or  Governor  Denver  relating  to  Kansas  affairs,  and  which  has  not  been 
communicated  to  the  Senate. 

Resolved — That  in  the  event  all  the  information  desired  in  the  foregoing  reso 
lution  is  not  now  in  the  possession  of  the  President,  or  of  any  of  the  Executive 
departments,  he  be  respectfully  requested  to  give  the  proper  orders  and  take 
the  necessary  steps  to  procure  the  same  for  the  use  of  the  Senate. 

ME.  SLIDEI.L  objected,  and  the  resolutions,  under  the  rules,  were 
hi  id  over. 


128  THE     LIFE      AND      SPEECHES      OF 


MINORITY    REPORT    ON   KANSAS    AFFAIRS. 

The  majority  of  the  Committee  on  Territories  being  in 
favor  of  the  admission  of  Kansas  under  the  Lecompton  con 
stitution,  submitted  through  Mr.  Green  a  report  to  that 
effect.  On  the  same  day,  February  18,  1858,  Mr.  Douglas 
submitted  a  Minority  Report,  which  will  be  found  in  a  subse 
quent  part  of  this  work. 

This  report  is  a  most  vigorous  argument,  showing  that 
there  was  no  evidence  that  the  Lecompton  constitution  was 
the  act  of  the  people  of  Kansas,  or  that  it  embodied  their 
will ;  that  the  right  of  admission  accrued  to  a  Territory  only 
when  they  had  sufficient  population ;  that  the  President  and 
his  cabinet  had  solemnly  assured  the  people  of  Kansas  that 
the  constitution  should  be  submitted  to  them  for  their  free 
acceptance  or  rejection ;  that  the  60  delegates  composing  the 
Lecompton  convention  were  chosen  by  19  of  the  38  counties 
of  the  Territory,  while  the  other  18  counties  were  entirely 
disfranchised ;  he  tears  away  the  thin  veil  that  covered  the 
designs  of  the  members  of  the  Lecompton  convention,  and 
shows  that  while  knowing  that  an  immense  majority  of  the 
people  of  Kansas  were  opposed  to  the  introduction  of  slavery 
they  yet  determined  that  they  would  form  a  constitution  sanc 
tioning  slavery,  and  submit  it  in  such  a  form  as  to  render  it 
impossible  for  them  to  reject  it;  that  the  election  held  in 
Kansas  on  the  21st  of  December,  1857,  was  not  valid  and 
binding  on  the  people  of  the  Territory,  for  the  reason  that  it 
was  not  held  in  pursuance  of  any  law ;  that  the  election  of 
January  4,  1858,  was  lawful  and  valid,  having  been  fairly 
conducted  under  a  valid  law  of  the  Territorial  legislature ; 
and  that  there  was  a  majority  of  10,000  votes  against  the  Le 
compton  constitution. 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  129 


DEBATE    ON   LECOMPTON. 

During  the  month  of  March,  1858,  the  proposition  to 
admit  Kansas  under  the  Lecompton  constitution  was  warmly 
debated  in  the  Senate.  On  the  22d,  Mr.  Douglas  made  a 
speech  which  was  one  of  the  ablest  efforts  of  his  life,  and 
will  be  read  with  interest  and  admiration,  as  long  as  a  vestige 
of  the  political  history  of  the  Union  exists.  In  this  speech, 
after  a  rapid  and  brief  review  of  his  course  in  Congress,  he 
shows  that  it  was  the  chief  merit  of  the  Compromise  mea 
sures  of  1850,  that  they  provided  a  rule  of  action  which 
should  apply  everywhere,  north  and  south  of  36°  30',  not 
only  to  the  territories  we  then  had,  but  to  all  we  might 
afterward  acquire  ;  and  thus  prevent  all  strife  and  agitation 
in  future.  He  shows  that  the  Lecompton  constitution  is  not 
the  act  and  deed  of  the  people  of  Kansas,  and  does  not 
embody  their  will.  In  concluding,  he  alludes  to  the  ap 
proaching  termination  of  his  senatorial  term,  and  to  the 
efforts  that  the  Executive  would  make  to  prevent  his  reelec 
tion.  In  tones  that  rang  through  the  Senate  chamber  clear 
and  sonorous  as  the  blast  of  a  trumpet,  he  gave  utterance 
to  these  noble  sentiments  : 

"  I  do  not  recognize  the  right  of  the  President  to  tell  me  my  duty 
in  the  Senate  chamber.  When  the  time  comes  that  a  Senator  is  to 
account  to  the  Executive,  and  not  to  his  State,  what  becomes  of  the 
severeignty  of  the  States  ?  Is  it  intended  to  brand  every  Democrat 
as  a  traitor  who  is  opposed  to  the  Lecompton  constitution  ?  Come 
what  may,  I  intend  to  vote,  speak,  and  act,  according  to  my  own 
sense  of  duty.  I  have  no  vindication  to  make  of  my  course.  Let 
it  speak  for  itself.  Neither  the  frowns  of  power  nor  the  influence 
of  patronage  will  change  my  action,  or  drive  me  from  my  principles. 
1  stand  immovably  upon  the  principles  of  State  Sovereignty,  upon 
which  the  campaign  was  fought  and  the  election  won.  I  will  stand 
by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  with  all  its  compromises, 
and  perform  all  my  obligations  under  it.  If  I  shall  be  driven  into 
private  life,  it  is  a  fate  that  has  no  terrors  for  me.  I  prefer  private 

6* 


130  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

life,  preserving  my  own  self-respect,  to  abject  and  servile  submissioa 
to  executive  will.  If  the  alternative  be  private  life,  or  servile  obe 
dience  to  executive  will,  I  am  prepared  to  retire.  Official  position 
lias  no  charms  for  me,  when  deprived  of  freedom  of  thought  and 
action." 

We  give  this  great  speech  entire  in  a  subsequent  part  of 
this  work.  It  was  delivered  in  the  evening,  the  Senate 
chamber  being  brilliantly  illuminated,  and  the  galleries 
crowded,  many  ladies  being  admitted  to  seats  on  the  floor  of 
the  Senate. 

On  the  next  day,  however,  March  23,  the  bill  admitting 
Kansas  into  the  Union  under  the  Lecompton  constitution, 
passed  the  Senate  by  a  vote  of  33  to  25.  Previous  to  taking 
this  vote,  Mr.  Crittenden,  of  Kentucky,  moved  a  substitute 
for  the  bill,  to  the  effect  that  the  Constitution  be  submitted 
to  the  people  of  Kansas  at  once  ;  and  if  approved,  the  State 
to  be  admitted  by  the  President's  proclamation.  If  rejected, 
the  people  to  call  a  convention  and  frame  a  constitution  to 
be  submitted  to  the  popular  vote.  Special  provisions  made 
against  frauds  at  elections.  The  substitute  was  lost — yeas 
24,  nays  34. 

On  the  first  of  April,  the  bill  as  passed  was  taken  up  in  the 
House  of  Representatives,  and  Mr.  Montgomery,  of  Penn 
sylvania,  offered,  as  a  substitue,  the  same  one  proposed  by 
Mr.  Crittenden.  This  was  adopted  in  the  House,  ayes  120, 
nays,  112. 

THE   ENGLISH   BILL. 

The  Senate  refused  to  concur  in  this  substitute,  and  a 
committee  of  conference  was  appointed  by  each  House,  who 
reported  what  has  since  been  known  as  the  English  bill, 
which  passed  both  Houses  of  Congress,  and  became  a  law. 
But  in  the  debate  in  the  Senate  on  the  Crittenden-Mont- 
gomery  amendment,  Mr,  Douglas  spoke  in  its  favor  and 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  131 

against  the  English  bill,  and  in  the  course  of  his  remarks 
said: 

"I  had  hoped  that  the  principle  of  self-government  in  the  Territo 
ries,  the  great  principle  of  popular  sovereignty  which  we  all  profess 
to  cherish,  on  which  all  our  institutions  are  founded,  would  have 
heen  carried  out  in  good  faith  in  Kansas.  I  believe,  sir,  that  if  the 
amendment  inserted  by  the  House  of  Kepresentatives  be  concurred 
in  by  the  Senate  to-day,  and  become  the  law  of  the  land,  the  great 
principle  of  popular  sovereignty,  on  which  all  our  institutions  rest, 
will  receive  a  complete  triumph,  and  there  will  be  peace  and  quiet 
and  fraternal  feeling  all  over  this  country. 

"  We  are  told  that  this  vexed  question  ought  to  be  settled  ;  that  the 
country  is  exhausted  with  strife  and  controversy ;  and  that  peace 
should  be  restored  by  the  admission  of  Kansas.  Sir,  why  not  admit 
it?  You  can  admit  it  in  one  hour,  and  restore  peace  to  the  country, 
if  you  will  concur  with  with  the  House  of  Kepresentatives  in  what 
is  called  the  Orittenden  amendment.  This  amendment  provides  that 
Kansas  is  admitted  into  the  Union  on  the  fundamental  condition  pre 
cedent  that  the  constitution  be  submitted  to  the  people  for  ratification, 
and  if  assented  to  by  them,  it  becomes  their  constitution ;  if  not 
assented  to,  they  are  to  proceed  to  make  one  to  suit  themselves,  and 
the  President  is  to  declare  the  result,  and  Kansas  is  to  be  in  the  Union 
without  further  legislation.  Concur  with  the  House  of  Representa 
tives,  and  your  action  is  final ;  Kansas  is  in  the  Union,  with  the  right 
to  make  her  constitution  to  suit  herself;  and  there  is  an  end  to  the 
whole  controversy." 

The  English  bill,  as  passed,  will  be  found  in  a  subsequent 
part  of  this  work. 


On  the  29th  of  April,  Mr.  Douglas  again  addressed  the 
Senate  on  the  same  general  subject,  with  more  particular 
reference  to  the  English  bill,  for  the  admission  of  Kansas, 
which  had  passed  the  House  of  Representatives.  In  this 
speech,  he  says : 

Mr.  President :  I  have  carefully  examined  the  bill  reported  by  the 
committee  of  conference  as  a  substitute  for  the  House  amendment  to 
the  Senate  bill  for  the  admission  of  Kansas,  with  an  anxious  desire 
to  find  in  it  such  provisions  as  would  enable  me  to  give  it  my  sup 
port.  I  had  hoped  that,  after  the  disagreement  of  the  two  houses 
upon  this  question,  some  plan,  some  form  of  bill,  could  have  been 


!3iJ  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

agreed  upon,  which  would  harmonize  and  quiet  the  country,  nnd 
reunite  those  who  agree  in  principle  and  in  political  action  on  this 
great  question,  so  as  to  take  it  out  of  Congress.  I  am  not  able,  in 
the  bill  which  is  now  under  consideration,  to  find  that  the  principle 
for  which  I  have  contended  is  fairly  carried  out.  The  position,  and 
r,he  sole  position,  upon  which  I  have  stood  in  this  whole  controversy, 
has  been  that  the  people  of  Kansas,  and  of  each  other  Territory,  in 
forming  a  constitution  for  admission  into  the  Union  as  a  State, 
should  be  left  perfectly  free  to  form  and  mold  their  domestic  insti 
tutions  and  organic  act  in  their  own  way,  without  coercion  on  the 
one  side,  or  any  improper  or  undue  influence  on  the  other. 

The  question  now  arises,  is  there  such  a  submission  of  the  Lecomp 
ton  constitution  as  brings  it  fairly  within  that  principle  ?  In  terms, 
the  constitution  is  not  submitted  at  all ;  but  yet  we  are  told  that  it 
amounts  to  a  submission,  because  there  is  a  land  grant  attached  to 
it,  and  they  are  permitted  to  vote  for  the  land  grant,  or  against  the 
land  grant ;  and,  if  they  accept  the  land  grant,  then  they  are  required 
to  take  the  constitution  with  it;  and,  if  they  reject  the  land  grant, 
it  shall  be  held  and  deemed  a  decision  against  coming  into  the  Union 
under  the  Lecompton  constitution.  Hence  it  has  been  argued  in  one 
portion  of  the  Union  that  this  is  a  submission  of  the  constitution, 
and  in  another  portion  that  it  is  not.  We  are  to  be  told  that  sub 
mission  is  popular  sovereignty  in  one  section,  and  submission  in 
another  section  is  not  popular  sovereignty. 

Sir,  I  had  hoped  that  when  we  came  finally  to  adjust  this  question, 
we  should  have  been  able  to  employ  language  so  clear,  so  unequi 
vocal,  that  there  would  have  been  no  room  for  doubt  as  to  what  was 
meant,  and  what  the  line  of  policy  was  to  be  in  the  future.  Are 
these  people  left  free  to  take  or  reject  the  Lecompton  constitution  ? 
It  they  accept  the  land  grant  they  are  compelled  to  take  it.  If  they 
reject  the  land  grant,  they  are  out  of  the  Union.  Sir,  I  have  no 
special  objection  to  the  land  grant  as  it  is.  I  think  it  is  a  fair  one, 
and  if  they  had  put  this  further  addition,  that  if  they  refused  to  come 
in  under  the  Lecompton  constitution  with  the  land  grant,  they  might 
proceed  to  form  a  new  constitution,  and  that  they  should  then  have 
the  same  amount  of  lands,  there  would  have  been  no  bounty  held 
out  for  coming  in  under  the  Lecompton  constitution  ;  but  when  the 
law  gives  them  the  six  million  acres  in  the  event  they  take  this  con 
stitution,  and  does  not  indicate  what  they  are  to  have  in  the  event 
they  reject  it,  and  wait  until  they  can  form  another,  Lsubmit  the 
question  whether  there  is  not  an  inducement,  a  bounty  held  out  to 
influence  these  people  to  vote  for  this  Lecompton  constitution? 

It  may  be  said  that  when  they  attain  the  ninety-three  thousand 
population,  or  if  they  wait  until  after  I860,  if  they  acquired  the 
population  required  by  the  then  ratio — which  may  be  one  hundred 
and  ten  thousand  or  one  hundred  and  twenty  thousand — and  form  a 
constitution  under  it,  we  shall  give  then  the  same  amount  of  land 
that  is  now  givem  by  this  grant.  That  may  be  so,  and  may  not  be 


STEPHEN     A  .     DOUGLAS.  133 

so.  I  believe  it  will  be  so  ;  and  yet  in  the  House  bill,  for  which  thia 
is  a  substitute,  the  provision  was  that  they  should  have  this  same 
amount  of  land,  whether  they  came  in  under  the  Lecorapton  consti 
tution  or  whether  they  formed  a  new  constitution.  There  was  no 
doubt,  no  uncertainty  left  in  regard  to  what  were  to  be  their  rights 
under  the  land  grant,  whether  they  took  the  one  constitution  or  the 
other.  Hence  that  proposition  was  a  fair  submission,  without  any 
penalties  on  the  one  side,  or  any  bounty  or  special  favor  or  privilege 
on  the  other  to  influence  their  action.  In  this  view  of  the  case,  I 
am  not  able  to  arrive  at  the  conclusion  that  this  is  a  fair  submission 
either  of  the  question  of  the  constitution  itself,  or  of  admission  into 
the  Union  under  the  constitution  and  the  proposition  submitted  by 
this  bill. 

There  is  a  further  contingency.  In  the  event  that  they  reject  this 
constitution,  they  are  to  stay  out  of  the  Union  until  they  shall  attain 
the  requisite  population  for  a  member  of  Congress,  according  to  the 
then  ratio  of  representation  in  the  other  House.  I  have  no  objection 
to  making  it  a  general  rule  that  Territories  shall  be  kept  out  until 
they  have  the  requisite  population.  I  have  proposed  it  over  and 
over  again.  I  am  willing  to  agree  to  it  and  make  it  applicable  to 
Kansas  if  you  will  make  it  a  general  rule.  But,  sir,  it  is  one  thing 
to  adopt  that  rule  as  a  general  rule  and  adhere  to  it  in  all  cases,  and 
and  it  is  a  very  different,  and  a  very  distinct  thing,  to  provide  that 
if  they  will  take  this  constitution,  which  the  people  have  shown  that 
they  abhor,  they  may  come  in  with  forty  thousand  people,  but  if 
they  do  not,  they  shall  stay  out  until  they  get  ninety  thousand  ;  thus 
discriminating  between  the  different  character  of  institutions  that 
may  be  formed.  I  submit  the  question  whether  it  is  not  congres 
sional  intervention,  when  you  provide  that  a  Territory  may  come  in 
with  one  kind  of  constitution  with  forty  thousand,  and  with  a  dif 
ferent  kind  of  constitution,  not  until  she  gets  ninety  thousand,  or  one 
hundred  and  twenty  thousand  ?  It  is  intervention  with  inducements 
to  control  the  result.  It  is  intervention  with  a  bounty  on  the  one 
side  and  a  penalty  on  the  other.  I  ask,  are  we  prepared  to  construe 
the  great  principle  of  popular  sovereignty  in  such  a  manner  as  will 
recognize  the  right  of  Congress  to  intervene  and  control  the  decision 
that  the  people  may  make  on  this  question  ? 

I  do  not  think  that  this  bill  brings  the  question  within  that  prin 
ciple  which  I  have  held  dear,  and  in  defence  of  which  I  have  stood 
here  for  the  last  five  months,  battling  against  the  large  majority  of 
ray  political  friends,  and  in  defence  of  which  I  intend  to  stand  aa 
long  as  I  have  any  association  or  connection  with  the  politics  of  the 
country. 

Mr.  President,  I  say  now,  as  I  am  about  to  take  leave  of  this 
subject,  that  I  never  can  consent  to  violate  that  great  principle  of 
State  equality,  of  State  sovereignty,  of  popular  sovereignty,  by  any 
discrimination,  either  in  the  one  direction  or  in  the  other.  My 
position  is  taken.  I  know  not  what  its  consequences  will  be  per 


134-  THE     LIFE     AND      SPEECHES     OF 

sonally  to  me.  I  will  not  inquire  what  those  consequences  may  be. 
If  I  cannot  remain  in  public  life,  holding  firmly,  immovably,  to  the 
great  principle  of  self-government  and  state  equality,  I  shall  go  into 
private  life,  where  I  can  preserve  the  respect  of  my  own  conscience 
under  the  conviction  that  I  have  done  my  duty  and  followed  the 
principle  wherever  its  logical  consequences  carried  me. 


SUBSEQUENT   AFFAIRS    OF   KANSAS. 

On  the  next  day,  however,  April  30,  the  Senate  passed  the 
English  bill.  So  far  as  the  action  of  Congress  was  concerned, 
Kansas  was  admitted:  that  is,  provided  the  people  there 
chose  to  come  in  under  the  English  bill. 

But  they  did  not  so  choose.  In  order  to  give  complete 
ness  to  this  view  of  affairs  in  Kansas,  we  will  state,  though  in 
doing  so  we  greatly  anticipate  the  order  of  time,  that  when 
the  election  took  place,  under  the  provisions  of  the  English 
bill,  the  people  of  Kansas  indignantly  rejected  the  proposi 
tions  of  the  bill,  and  at  the  election  held  on  the  3d  of  August, 
1858,  trampled  the  odious  Lecompton  constitution  under 
their  feet,  by  a  majority  of  10,000  votes.  Soon  after  the 
election,  Gov.  Denver  resigned,  and  Samuel  Medary  of  Ohic 
was  appointed  governor.  The  Territorial  legislature  met  in 
January,  1859,  repealed  many  of  the  laws  of  the  previous 
session,  passed  a  new  apportionment  act ;  and  an  act  referring 
to  the  people  the  question  of  a  new  constitutional  convention, 
the  election  to  be  held  March  21.  The  people  decided  for  a 
constitutional  convention  by  a  majority  of  3,881.  The  con 
vention  met  at  Wyandot,  on  the  5th  of  July,  1859,  and 
adopted  a  constitution  by  a  small  majority,  the  minority  pro 
testing  against  its  adoption. 

ME.    DOUGLAS    ON  BRITISH   AGGRESSION. 

On  the  29th  of  May,  1858,  Mr.  Douglas  addressed  the  Senate, 
on  the  general  subject  of  the  recent  British  aggression  on 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  135 

our  ships,  in  a  speech  which  made  a  most  powerful  impres 
sion,  not  only  on  the  Senate,  but  on  the  whole  countiy.  He 
ridiculed  the  idea  of  simply  passing  resolutions  on  the  sub 
ject;  and  urged  the  importance,  nay,  the  necessity,  of  at 
once  adopting  such  energetic  measures  as  should  convince 
England  that  the  time  had  come  at  last  when  this  nation 
would  no  longer  submit  to  her  aggressions.  He  urged  that 
the  President  of  the  United  States  should  be  clothed  with 
power  to  punish  instantly  and  effectually,  all  outrages  on  our 
flag,  as  soon  as  committed :  "  confer  the  power,  and  hold 
him  responsible  for  its  abuse."  He  showed  that  the  Presi 
dent  of  the  United  States  was  utterly  powerless  abroad,  and 
that  unless  some  such  measures  as  he  proposed  should  be 
adopted,  the  outrages  of  Great  Britain  would  be  contin 
ued.  He  then  proceeded  to  prove,  from  his  own  observation, 
that  the  coast  of  America  was  not  defenceless ;  that  indeed, 
the  coast  of  the  United  States  is  in  a  better  condition  of  de 
fence  than  that  of  Great  Britain  ;  that  ISTew  York  was  at  this 
day  better  defended  than  London  or  Liverpool :  and  that 
it  is  easier  for  a  hostile  fleet  to  enter  the  harbor  of  either  of 
those  cities  than  the  harbor  of  New  York. 

"  While  I  am  opposed  to  war,"  said  Mr.  Douglas,  "  while 
I  have  no  idea  of  any  breach  of  the  peace  with  England,  yet, 
I  confess  to  you,  sir,  if  war  should  come  by  her  act,  and  not 
ours  ;  by  her  invasion  of  our  rights,  and  our  vindication  of 
the  same ;  I  would  administer  to  every  citizen  and  every 
child  Hannibal's  oath  of  eternal  hostility  as  long  as  the  En 
glish  flag  waved,  or  their  government  claimed  a  foot  of  land 
upon  the  American  continent,  or  the  adjacent  islands.  Sir, 
I  would  make  it  a  war  that  would  settle  our  disputes  for 
ever,  not  only  of  the  right  of  search  upon  the  seas,  but  the 
rig]  it  to  tread  with  a  hostile  foot  upon  the  soil  of  the  Ameri 
can  continent  or  its  appendages." 

The  reader  will  find  the  whole  of  this  eloquent  and  patri- 


136  THE     LIFE     AND      SPEECHES     OF 

otic  speech,  in  a  subsequent  part  of  this  work.  It  electrified 
the  whole  nation.  Men  breathed  freer  and  easier  when  they 
read  it :  and  no  one  with  a  spark  of  American  feeling  in  his 
breast  failed  to  respond  to  the  noble  sentiments  of  the  gal 
lant  sen  ate  r  from  Illinois. 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  137 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

Mr.  Douglas  returns  to  Chicago — Brilliant  Reception — Makes   his  Speech 
opening  the  Campaign — Lays  down  Principles  on  which  he  conducted  it. 

Soox  after  Congress  adjourned,  in  June,  1858,  Mr.  Douglas 
returned  to  Illinois  to  engage  in  his  canvass  for  reelection  to 
the  Senate,  and  to  vindicate  the  line  of  policy  which  he  had 
felt  it  his  duty  to  pursue.  He  arrived  at  Chicago  on  the  9th 
of  July,  and  was  welcomed  by  such  a  reception  as  no  public 
man  has  ever  received  in  this  country.  The  newspapers  of 
that  city,  of  all  shades  of  political  opinions,  concur  in  repre 
senting  it  as  one  of  the  most  magnificent  orations  on  record. 
Many  columns  of  their  sheets  were  filled  with  descriptions  of 
the  arrangements  for  the  reception,  the  vast  concourse  of 
people — estimated  at  30,000 — the  processions,  illumination  of 
houses,  fireworks,  banners,  cannon,  etc.,  etc.,  which  greeted 
Mr.  Douglas'  return  to  his  home. 

The  great  event  of  this  imposing  pageant,  however,  was 
the  speech  of  Mr.  Douglas,  in  reply  to  the  address  of  wel 
come.  After  an  appropriate  and  feeling  acknowledgment 
of  the  honor  done  him  in  this  grand  testimonial,  he  proceeded 
to  a  discussion  of  the  principles  involved  in  the  great  contro 
versy  in  which  he  was  engaged.  As  this  was  the  opening 
speech  of  the  canvass,  and  clearly  defines  the  principles  on 
which  it  was  afterward  conducted  through  a  series  of  more 
than  one  hundred  joint  and  separate  debates,  we  shall  make 
such  copious  extracts  as  may  enable  the  reader  to  understand 
the  points  in  issue  in  that  memorable  campaign. 


THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OP 


PRINCIPLES    OF   SELF-GOVERNMENT,    AS   APPLICAPJLE  TO   THE 
LECOMPTON    CONSTITUTION. 

If  there  is  any  one  principle  dearer  and  more  sacred  than  all  others  in 
free  governments,  it  is  that  which  asserts  the  exclusive  right  of  a  free  peo 
ple  to  form  and  adopt  their  own  fundamental  law,  and  to  manage  and 
regulate  their  own  internal  affairs  and  domestic  institutions.  (Applause.) 

When  I  found  an  effort  being  made,  during  the  recent  session  of  Con 
gress,  to  force  a  constitution  upon  the  people  of  Kansas  against  their  will, 
and  to  force  that  State  into  the  Union  with  a  constitution  which  her  people 
had  rejected  by  more  than  10,000  majority,  I  felt  bound,  as  a  man  of 
honor  and  a  representative  of  Illinois,  bound  by  every  consideration  of 
duty,  of  fidelity,  and  of  patriotism,  to  resist  to  the  utmost  of  my  power  the 
consummation  of  what  I  deemed  fraud.  (Cheers.)  With  others  I  did 
resist  it,  and  resisted  it  successfully  until  the  attempt  was  abandoned. 
(Great  applause.)  We  forced  them  to  refer  that  constitution  back  to  the 
people  of  Kansas,  to  be  accepted  or  rejected,  as  they  shall  decide  at  an 
election,  which  is  fixed  for  the  first  Monday  of  August  next.  It  is  true 
that  the  mode  of  reference  and  the  form  of  the  submission  was  not  such  as 
I  could  sanction  with  my  vote,  for  the  reason  that  it  discriminated  between 
free  States  and  slave  States ;  providing  that  if  Kansas  consented  to  come 
in  under  the  Lecompton  constitution  it  should  be  received  with  a  popula 
tion  of  35,000 ;  but  if  she  demanded  another  constitution,  more  consistent 
with  the  sentiments  of  her  people  and  their  feelings,  that  it  should  not  be 
received  into  the  Union  until  she  had  93,420  inhabitants.  (Cries  of  "  hear, 
hear,"  and  cheers.)  I  did  not  consider  that  mode  of  submission  fair,  for 
the  reason  that  any  election  is  a  mockery  which  is  not  free — that  any  elec 
tion  is  a  fraud  upon  the  rights  of  the  people  which  holds  out  inducements 
for  affirmative  votes,  and  threatens  penalties  for  negative  votes.  (Hear, 
hear.)  But  whilst  I  was  not  satisfied  with  the  mode  of  submission,  whilst 
I  resisted  it  to  the  last,  demanding  a  fair,  a  just,  a  free  mode  of  submission, 
still,  when  the  law  passed  placing  it  within  the  power  of  the  people  of 
Kansas  at  that  election  to  reject  the  Lecompton  constitution,  and  then 
make  another  in  harmony  with  their  principles  and  their  opinions  (Bravo, 
and  applause),  I  did  not  believe  that  either  the  penalties  on  the  one  hand. 
or  the  inducements  on  the  other,  would  prevail  on  that  people  to  accept  a 
constitution  to  which  they  are  irreconcilably  opposed.  (Cries  of  "glori 
ous,"  and  renewed  applause.)  All  I  can  say  is,  that  if  their  votes  can  be 
controlled  by  such  considerations,  all  the  sympathy  which  has  been 


OF 


STEPHEN      A.     DOUGLAS.  139 


expended  upon  them  has  been  luisplaced,  and  all  the  efforts  that  have  been 
made  in  defence  of  their  right  to  self-government  have  been  made  iii  ao 
unworthy  cause.  (Cheers.) 

NO    EIGHT  TO    FORCE   EVEN    A    GOOD  THINTG    ON  AN  UNWILLING 

PEOPLE. 

I  will  be  entirely  frank  with  you.  My  object  was  to  secure  the  right 
of  the  people  of  each  State  and  of  each  Territory,  North  or  South,  to  de 
cide  the  question  for  themselves,  to  have  slavery  or  not,  just  as  thoy 
choose  ;  and  my  opposition  to  the  Lecompton  constitution  was  not  pre 
dicated  upon  the  ground  that  it  was  a  pro-slavery  Constitution  (cheers), 
nor  would  my  action  have  been  different  had  it  been  a  free-soil  Constitu 
tion.  My  speech  against  it  was  made  on  the  9th  of  December,  while  the 
vote  on  the  slavery  clause  in  that  Constitution  was  not  taken  until  the  21st 
of  the  same  month,  nearly  two  weeks  after.  I  made  my  speech  solely  on 
the  ground  that  it  was  a  violation  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  free 
government  ;  on  the  ground  that  it  was  not  the  act  and  deed  of  the  people 
of  Kansas  ;  that  it  did  not  embody  their  will  ;  that  they  were  averse  to 
it  ;  and  hence  I  denied  the  right  of  Congress  to  force  it  upon  them,  cither 
as  a  free  State  or  a  slave  State.  (Bravo.)  i  deny  the  right  of  Congress 
to  force  a  slaveholding  State  upon  an  unwilling  people.  (Cheers.)  I 
deny  their  right  to  force  a  free  State  upon  an  unwilling  people.  (Cheers.) 
I  deny  their  right  to  force  a  good  thing  upon  a  people  who  are  unwilling 
to  receive  it.  (Cries  of  "  Good,  good,"  and  cheers.)  The  great  principle 
is  the  right  of  every  community  to  judge  and  decide  for  itself  whether  a 
thing  is  right  or  wrong,  whether  it  would  be  good  or  evil  for  them  to 
adopt  it  ;  and  the  right  of  free  action,  the  right  of  free  thought,  the  right 
of  free  judgment  upon  the  question  is  dearer  to  every  true  American  than 
any  other  under  a  free  government.  My  objection  to  the  Lecompton  con 
trivance  was  that  it  undertook  to  put  a  constitution  on  the  people  of 
Kansas  against  their  will,  in  opposition  to  their  wishes,  and  thus  violated 
the  great  principle  upon  which  all  our  institutions  rest.  It  is  no  answer  to 
this  argument  to  say  that  slavery  is  an  evil,  and  hence  should  not  be  tole 
rated.  You  must  allow  the  people  to  decide  for  themselves  whether  it  is 
a  good  or  an  evil.  You  allow  them  to  decide  for  themselves  whether  they 
desire  a  Maine  liquor  law  or  not  ;  you  allow  them  to  decide  for  them 
selves  what  kind  of  common  schools  they  will  have;  what  system  of 
banking  they  will  adopt,  or  whether  they  will  adopt  any  at  all  ;  you  allow 
them  to  decide  for  themselves  the  relations  between  husband  and  wife, 


140  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

parent  and  child,  and  guardian  and  ward ;  in  fact,  you  allow  them  to  de 
cide  for  themselves  all  other  questions,  and  why  not  upon  this  ques« 
tion  ?  (Cheers.)  Whenever  you  put  a  limitation  upon  the  right  of  any 
people  to  decide  what  laws  they  want,  you  have  destroyed  the  fundamen 
tal  principle  of  self-government.  (Cheers). 


ORIGIN    OF   THE   IKEEPKESSIBLE   CONFLICT. 

The  Republican  convention  which,  nominated  Mr.  Lincoln 
for  United  States  senator  in  opposition  to  Mr.  Douglas,  was 
held  in  the  city  of  Springfield,  on  the  15th  of  June,  1858. 
Immediately  after  Mr.  Lincoln's  unanimous  nomination  was 
announced,  he  read  to  the  convention  a  carefully  elaborated 
speech  accepting  the  nomination  which  he  had  prepared  in 
anticipation  of  that  event,  and  which  was  published  for  cir 
culation  by  order  of  the  convention,  as  an  authoritative  ex 
position  of  the  principles  of  the  Republican  party.  Mr. 
Douglas  referring  to  this  speech,  said  : 

Mr.  Lincoln  made  a  speech  before  that  Republican  convention  which 
unanimously  nominated  him  for  the  Senate — a  speech  evidently  well  pre 
pared  and  carefully  written — in  which  he  states  the  basis  upon  which  he 
proposes  to  carry  on  the  campaign  during  this  summer.  In  it  he  lays  dowi 
two  distinct  propositions  which  I  shall  notice,  and  upon  which  I  shall  take 
a  direct,  and  bold  issue  with  him.  (Cries  of  "Good,  good,"  and  great 
applause). 

His  first  and  main  proposition  I  will  give  in  his  own  language,  Scrip 
ture  quotation  and  all  (laughter).  I  give  his  exact  language  : 

"  In  my  opinion  it  [the  slavery  agitation]  will  not  cease  until  a  crisis  shall 
h-ive  been  reached  and  passed.  ''A  BOOM  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand.' 
I  believe  this  government  cannot  endure  permanently  half  slave  and  half  free. 
I  do  not  expect  the  house  to  fall,  but  I  do  expect  it  will  cease  to  be  divided.  It 
will  become  all  one  thing  or  all  the  other.  Either  the  opponents  of  slavery  will 
arrest  the  further  spread  of  it,  and  place  it  where  the  public  mind  shall  rest  in 
1he  belief  that  it  is  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction,  or  its  advocates  will 
pu>h  forward  till  it  shall  become  alike  lawful  in  all  the  States— old  as  well  as 
new,  North  as  well  as  South." 

In  other  words,  Mr.  Lincoln  asserts  as  a  fundamental  principle  of  this 
government,  that  there  must  be  uniformity  in  the  local  laws  and  domestic 
institutions  of  each  and  all  the  States  of  the  Union  ;  and  he  therefore  in- 


STEPHEN      A  .     DOUGLAS. 

vites  all  the  non-slaveholding  States  to  band  together,  organize  as  one 
body,  and  make  war  upon  slavery  in  Kentucky,  upon  slavery  in  Virginia, 
upon  slavery  in  the  Carolinas,  upon  slavery  in  all  the  slaveholding  States 
in  this  Union,  and  to  persevere  in  that  war  until  it  shall  be  exterminated. 
He  then  notified  the  shareholding  States  to  stand  together  as  a  unit  and 
make  an  aggressive  war  upon  the  free  States  of  this  Union  with  a  view  of 
establishing  slavery  in  them  all ;  of  forcing  it  upon  Illinois,  of  forcing  it 
upon  New  York,  upon  New  England,  and  upon  every  other  free  State,  and 
that  they  shall  keep  up  the  warfare  until  it  has  been  formally  established 
in  them  all.  In  other  words,  Mr.  Lincoln  advocates  boldly  and  clearly  a 
war  of  sections,  a  war  of  the  North  against  the  South,  of  the  free  States 
against  the  slave  States — a  war  of  extermination — to  be  continued  relent 
lessly,  until  the  one  or  the  other  shall  be  subdued  and  all  the  States  shall 
either  become  free  or  become  slave. 

Now,  my  friends,  I  must  say  to  you  frankly,  that  1  take  bold,  unqualified 
issue  with  him  upon  that  principle.  I  assert  that  it  i.s  neither  desirable 
nor  possible  that  there  should  be  uniformity  in  the  local  institutions  arid 
domestic  regulations  of  the  different  States  of  this  Union.  The  framers 
of  our  government  never  contemplated  uniformity  in  its  internal  concerns. 
The  fathers  of  the  Revolution,  and  the  sages  who  made  the  Constitution, 
well  understood  that  the  laws  and  domestic  institutions  which  would  suit 
the  granite  hills  of  New  Hampshire,  would  be  totally  unfit  for  the  rice 
plantations  of  South  Carolina  (cheers) ;  they  well  understood  that  the  laws 
which  would  suit  the  agricultural  districts  of  Pennsylvania  and  New  York, 
would  be  totally  unfit  for  the  large  mining  regions  of  the  Pacific,  or  the 
lumber  regions  of  Maine.  (Bravo.)  They  well  understood  that  the  great 
varieties  of  soil,  of  production,  and  of  interests,  in  a  republic  as  large  as 
this,  required  different  local  and  domestic  regulations  in  each  locality, 
adapted  to  the  wants  and  interests  of  each  separate  State  (cries  of 
44  bravo"  and  "good,")  and  for  that  reason  it  was  provided  in  the  federal 
Constitution  that  the  thirteen  original  States  should  remain  sovereign  and 
supreme  within  their  own  limits  in  regard  to  all  that  was  local,  and  inter 
nal,  and  domestic,  while  the  Federal  Government  should  have  certain  speci 
fied  powers  which  were  general  and  national,  and  could  be  exercised  only 
by  the  federal  authority.  (Cheers). 


14:2  THE      LIFE     AND      SPEECHES      OF 


IF    UNIFORMITY    WERE   EITHER    DESIRABLE    OR    POSSIBLE,    HOW 
IS   IT   TO    BE    ACCOMPLISHED  ? 

How  could  this  uniformity  be  accomplished  if  it  were  desirable  and 
possible  ?  There  is  but  one  mode  in  which  it  could  be  obtained,  and  that 
must  be  by  abolishing  the  State  legislatures,  blotting  out  State  sovereignty, 
merging  the  rights  and  sovereignty  of  the  States  in  one  consolidated 
empire,  and  vesting  Congress  with  the  plenary  power  to  make  all  the  police 
regulations,  domestic  and  local  laws,  uniform  throughout  the  limits  of  the 
Republic.  When  you  shall  have  done  this  you  will  have  uniformity.  Then 
the  States  will  all  be  slave  or  all  be  free  ;  then  negroes  will  be  free  every 
where  or  nowhere;  then  you  will  have  a  Maine  liquor  law  in  every  State 
or  none  ;  then  you  will  have  uniformity  in  all  things  local  and  domestic 
by  the  authority  of  the  Federal  Government.  But,  when  you  attain  that 
uniformity  you  will  have  converted  these  thirty-two  sovereign,  independent 
States  into  one  consolidated  empire,  with  the  uniformity  of  disposition 
reigning  triumphant  throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of  the  land. 
("  Hear,"  "  hear,"  "  bravo,"  and  great  applause.) 

From  this  view  of  the  case,  my  friends,  I  am  driven  irresistibly  to  the 
conclusion  that  diversity,  dissimilarity,  variety  in  all  our  local  and  domestic 
institutions,  is  the  great  safeguard  of  our  liberties  ;  and  that  the  framens 
of  our  institutions  were  wise,  sagacious,  and  patriotic  when  they  made  this 
government  a  confederation  of  sovereign  States  with  a  legislature  for  each, 
and  conferred  upon  each  legislature  the  power  to  make  all  local  and  do 
mestic  institutions  to  suit  the  people  it  represented,  without  interference 
from  any  other  State  or  from  the  general  Congress  of  the  Union.  If  we 
expect  to  maintain  our  liberties  we  must  preserve  the  rights  and  sovereignty 
of  the  States,  we  must  maintain  and  carry  out  that  great  principle  of  self- 
government  incorporated  in  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850;  indorsed 
by  the  Illinois  legislature  in  1851 ;  emphatically  embodied  and  carried 
out  in  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Bill,  and  vindicated  this  year  by  the  refusal  to 
bring  Kansas  into  the  Union  with  a  constitution  distasteful  to  her  people. 
(Cheers.) 

NO   CRUSADE  AGAINST  THE  SUPREME    COURT — THE  DRED    SCOTT 
DECISION  THE  LAW  OF  THE  LAND  AND  MUST  BE  OBEYED. 

The  other  proposition  discussed  by  Mr.  Lincoln  in  his  speech  consists  iu 
a  crusade  against  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  on  account  of 
the  Dred  Scott  decision.  On  this  question,  also,  i  desire  to  say  to  you 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  143 

unequivocally,  that  I  take  direct  and  distinct  issue  with  him.  I  have  no 
warfare  to  make  on  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  (Bravo), 
either  on  account  of  that  or  any  other  decision  which  they  have  pro-' 
nounced  from  that  bench.  ("  Good,  good,"  and  enthusiastic  applause.) 
The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  has  provided  that  the  powers  of  gov 
ernment  (and  the  constitution  of  each  State  has  the  same  provision)  shall 
be  divided  into  three  departments,  executive,  legislative  and  judicial.  The 
right  and  the  province  of  expounding  the  Constitution,  and  construing 
the  law,  is  vested  in  the  judiciary,  established  by  the  Constitution.  As  a 
lawyer,  I  feel  at  liberty  to  appear  before  the  court  and  controvert  any 
principle  of  law  while  the  question  is  pending  before  the  tribunal  ;  but  when 
the  decision  is  made,  my  private  opinion,  your  opinion,  all  other  opinions 
must  yield  to  the  majesty  of  that  authoritative  adjudication.  (Cries  of  "  it  is 
right,"  "  good,  good,"  and  cheers.)  I  wish  you  to  bear  in  mind  that  this  in 
volves  a  great  principle,  upon  which  our  rights,  and  our  liberty  and  our 
property  all  depend.  What  security  have  you  for  your  property,  for  your 
reputation,  and  for  your  personal  rights,  if  the  courts  are  not  upheld,  and 
their  decisions  respected  when  once  firmly  rendered  by  the  highest 
tribunal  known  to  the  Constitution  ?  (Cheers.)  I  do  not  choose,  there 
fore,  to  go  into  any  argument  with  Mr.  Lincoln  in  reviewing  the  various 
decisions  which  the  Supreme  Court  has  made,  either  upon  the  Dred  Scott 
case,  or  any  other.  I  have  no  idea  of  appealing  from  the  decision  of  the 
Supreme  Court  upon  a  constitutional  question  to  a  tumultuous  town-meet 
ing.  (Cheers.)  I  am  aware  that  once  an  eminent  lawyer  of  this  city,  now 
no  more,  said  that  the  State  of  Illinois  had  the  most  perfect  judicial  system 
in  the  world,  subject  to  but  one  exception,  which  could  be  cured  by  a 
slight  amendment,  and  that  amendment  was  to  so  change  the  law  as  to 
allow  an  appeal  from  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Illinois,  on  all 
constitutional  questions,  to  two  justices  of  the  peace.  (Great  laughter  and 
applause.)  My  friend,  Mr.  Lincoln,  who  sits  behind  me,  reminds  me  that 
that  proposition  was  made  when  I  was  judge  of  the  Supreme  Court.  Be 
that  as  it  may,  I  do  not  think  that  fact  adds  any  greater  weight  or 
authority  to  the  suggestion.  (Renewed  laughter  and  applause.)  It  mat 
ters  not  with  me  who  was  on  the  bench,  whether  Mr.  Lincoln  or  myself, 
whether  a  Lockwood  or  a  Smith,  a  Taiiey  or  a  Marshall ;  the  decision  of 
the  highest  tribunal  known  to  the  Constitution  of  the  country  must  be  final 
until  it  has  been  reversed  by  an  equally  high  authority.  (Cries  of  "bravo" 
and  applause.)  Hence,  I  am  opposed  to  this  doctrine  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  by 
which  he  proposes  to  take  an  appeal  from  the  decision  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  upon  these  high  constitutional  questions  to  u 
Republican  caucus.  (A  voice — "  Call  it  Freesoil,"  and  cheers.)  Yes,  or  ta 


144  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

any  other  caucus  or  town-meeting,  whether  it  be  Republican,  American,  or 
Democratic.  (Cheers.)  I  respect  the  decisions  of  that  august  tribunal;  I 
shall  always  bow  in  deference  to  them.  I  am  a  law-abiding  man.  I  will 
sustain  the  Constitution  of  my  country  as  our  fathers  have  made  it.  I  will 
yield  obedience  to  the  laws,  whether  I  like  them  or  not,  as  I  find  them  on 
the  statute  book.  I  will  sustain  the  judicial  tribunals  and  constituted 
authorities  in,  all  matters  within  the  pale  of  their  jurisdiction,  as  defined  by 
the  Constitution.  (Applause.) 


OURS  A  WHITE   MAN'S    GOVERNMENT — NEGROES    NOT   CITIZENS. 

But  I  am  equally  free  to  say  that  the  reason  assigned  by  Mr.  Lincoln  for 
resisting  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  intheDred  Scott  case  does  not 
in  itself  meet  my  approbation.  He  objects  to  it  because  that  decision  de 
clared  that  a  negro  descended  from  African  parents  who  were  brought 
here  and  sold  as  slaves,  is  not,  and  cannot  be,  a  citizen  of  the  United 
States.  He  says  it  is  wrong,  because  it  deprives  the  negro  of  the  benefits 
of  that  clause  of  the  Constitution  which  says  that  citizens  of  one  State 
shall  enjoy  all  the  privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens  of  the  several 
States ;  in  other  words,  he  thinks  it  wrong  because  it  deprives  the  negro 
of  the  privileges,  immunities,  and  rights  of  citizenship,  which  pertain,  ac 
cording  to  that  decision,  only  to  the  white  man.  Q  am  free  to  say  to  you 
that  in  my  opinion  this  government  of  ours  is  founded  on  the  white  basis. 
(Great  applause.)  It  was  made  by  the  white  man,  for  the  benefit  of  the 
white  man,  to  be  administered  by  white  men,  in  such  a  manner  as  they 
should  determine.  (Cheers.)  It  is  also  true  that  a  negro,  or  any  other 
man  of  an  inferior  race  to  a  white  man,  should  be  permitted  to  enjoy,  and 
humanity  requires  that  he  should  have  all  the  rights,  privileges  and  immu 
nities  which  he  is  capable  of  exercising  consistent  with  the  safety  of  society. 
I  would  give  him  every  right  and  every  privilege  which  his  capacity  would 
enable  him  to  enjoy,  consistent  with  the  good  of  the  society  in  which  he 
lived.  ("  Bravo.")  But  you  may  ask  me  what  are  these  rights  and  these 
privileges.  My  answer  is  that  each  State  must  decide  for  itself  the  nature 
and  extent  of  these  rights.  ("  Hear,  hear,"  and  applause^/ .  Illinois  has 
Decided  for  herself.  We  have  decided  that  the  negro  shall  not  be  a  slave, 
and  we  have  at  the  same  time  decided  that  he  shall  not  vote,  or  serve  on 
juries,  or  enjoy  political  privileges.  I  am  content  with  that  system  of 
policy  which  we  have  adopted  for  ourselves.  (Cheers.)  I  deny  the  right 
of  any  other  State  to  complain  of  our  policy  in  1,1 1 at  respect,  or  to  interfere 
with  it,  or  to  attempt  to  change  it.  On  the  other  hand,  the  State  of  Maim? 


STEPHEN     A.    DOUGLAS.  14:5 

has  decided,  as  she  had  a  right  to  under  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  thai  in 
that  State  a  negro  may  vote  on  an  equality  with  the  white  man.  The 
sovereign  power  of  Maine  had  the  right  to  prescribe  that  rule  for  herself. 
Illinois  has  no  right  to  complain  of  Maine  for  conferring  the  right  upon 
negro  suffrage,  nor  has  Maine  any  right  to  interfere  with,  or  complain  of, 
Illinois  because  she  has  denied  negro  suffrage.  (•'  That's  so,"  and  cheers.) 
The  State  of  New  York  has  decided  by  her  constitution  that  a  negro  may 
vote,  provided  that  he  owns  $250  worth  of  property,  but  not  otherwise. 
The  rich  negro  can  vote,  but  the  poor  one  cannot.  (Laughter.)  Although 
that  distinction  does  not  commend  itself  to  my  judgment,  yet  I  assert  that 
the  sovereign  power  of  New  York  had  a  right  to  prescribe  that  form  of  the 
elective  franchise.  Kentucky,  Virginia,  and  other  States  have  provided 
that  negroes,  or  a  certain  class  of  them  in  those  States,  shall  be  slaves, 
having  neither  civil  nor  political  rights.  Without  indorsing  or  condemning 
the  wisdom  of  that  decision,  I  assert  that  Virginia  has  the  same  power,  by 
virtue  of  her  sovereignty,  to  protect  slavery  within  her  limits  as  Illinois  has 
to  banish  it  forever  from  our  borders.  ("  Hear,  hear,"  and  applause.)  I 
assert  the  right  of  each  State  to  decide  for  itself  on  all  these  questions,  and 
I  do  not  subscribe  to  the  doctrine  of  my  friend,  Mr.  Lincoln,  that 
uniformity  is  either  desirable  or  possible.  I  do  not  acknowledge  that  the 
States  must  all  be  free  or  must  all  be  slave. 

I  do  not  acknowledge  that  the  negro  must  have  civil  and  political  rights 
everywhere  or  nowhere.  I  do  not  acknowledge  that  the  Chinese  must 
have  the  same  rights  in  California  that  we  would  confer  upon  him  here. 
I  do  not  acknowledge  that  the  Coolie  imported  into  this  country  must 
necessarily  be  put  upon  an  equality  with  the  white  race.  I  do  not  ac 
knowledge  any  of  these  doctrines  of  uniformity  in  the  local  and  domestic 
regulations  in  the  different  States.  ("  Bravo,"  and  cheers.) 
J  Thus  you  see,  my  fellow-citizens,  that  the  issues  between  Mr.  Lincoln  and 
myself,  as  respective  candidates  for  the  U.  S.  Senate,  as  made  up,  are 
direct,  unequivocal,  and  irreconcilable.  He  goes  for  uniformity  in  our 
domestic  institutions,  for  a  war  of  sections,  until  one  or  the  other  sTiall  be 
subdued.  I  go  for  the  great  principle  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Bill,  the 
right  of  the  people  to  decide  for  themselves.  (Senator  Douglas  was  here 
interrupted  by  the  wildest  applause  ;  cheer  after  cheer  rent  the  air  ;  the 
band  struck  up  "  Yankee  Doodle  ;"  rockets  and  pieces  of  fireworks  blazed 
forth  ;  and  the  enthusiasm  was  so  intense  and  universal  that  it  was  some 
time  before  order  could  be  restored  and  Mr.  Douglas  resume.  The  scene 
at  this  period  was  glorious  beyond  description.)  1 


146  THE     LIFE     AND      SPEECHES     O  f 

STANDS   BY   THE   DEMOCRATIC  ORGANIZATION  AND  THE  CINCIN 
NATI   PLATFORM. 

My  friends,  you  see  that  the  issues  are  distinctly  drawn.  I  stand  by  the 
'  same  platform  that  I  have  so  often  proclaimed  to  you  and  to  the  people  of 
Illinois  heretofore.  (Cries  of  "  That's  true,"  and  applause.)  I  stand  by  the 
Democratic  organization,  yield  obedience  to  its  usages,  and  support  its 
regular  nominations.  (Intense  enthusiasm.)  I  indorse  and  approve  the 
Cincinnati  platform  (renewed  applause),  and  I  adhere  to  and  intend  to 
carry  out  as  part  of  that  platform  the  great  principle  of  self-government, 
which  recognizes  the  right  of  the  people  in  each  State  and  Territory  to 
decide  for  themselves  their  domestic  institutions.  ("  Good,  good,"  and 
cheers.)  / 

In  conclusion,  he  denounces  the  "  unholy  alliance :" 

Fellow-citizens,  you  now  have  before  you  the  outlines  of  the  propositions 
which  I  intend  to  discuss  before  the  people  of  Illinois  during  the  pending 
campaign.  I  have  spoken  without  preparation,  and  in  a  very  desultory 
manner,  and  may  have  omitted  some  points  which  I  desired  to  discuss, 
and  may  hare  been  less  explicit  on  others  than  I  could  have  wished.  I 
iiave  made  up  my  mind  to  appeal  to  the  people  against  the  combination 
which  has  been  made  against  me.  (Enthusiastic  applause.)  The  Republi 
can  leaders  have  formed  an  alliance,  an  unholy,  unnatural  alliance,  with  a 
portion  of  the  federal  officeholders.  I  intend  to  fight  that  allied  army 
wherever  I  meet  them.  (Cheers.)  I  know  they  deny  the  alliance  while 
avowing  the  common  purpose ;  but  yet  these  men  who  are  trying  to  divide 
the  Democratic  party  for  the  purpose  of  electing  a  Republican  senator  in 
my  place,  are  just  as  much  the  agents,  the  tools,  the  supporters  of  Mr. 
Lincoln  as  if  they  were  avowed  Republicans,  and  expect  their  reward  for 
their  services  when  the  Republicans  come  into  power.  (Cries  of  "  That  is 
true,"  and  cheers.)  I  shall  deal  with  these  allied  forces  just  as  the  Rus 
sians  dealt  with  the  allies  at  Scbastopol.  The  Russians  when  they  fired  a 
broadside  at  the  common  enemy  did  not  stop  to  inquire  whether  it  hit  a 
Frenchman,  an  Englishman  or  a  Turk,  nor  will  I  stop  (laughter  and  great 
applause),  nor  shall  I  stop  to  inquire  whether  my  blows  hit  the  Republican 
leaders  or  their  allies,  who  are  holding  the  federal  offices  and  yet  acting  in 
concert  with  the  Republicans  to  defeat  the  Democratic  party  and  its  nomi 
nees.  (Cheers,  and  cries  of  "  Bravo.")  I  do  not  include  all  of  the  federal 
officeholders  in  this  remark.  Such  of  them  as  are  Democrats  and  show 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  147 

their  Democracy  by  remaining  inside  of  the  Democratic  organization  and 
supporting  its  nominees,  I  recognize  as  Democrats,  but  those  who,  having 
been  defeated  inside  of  the  organization,  go  outside  and  attempt  to  divide 
and  destroy  the  party  in  concert  with  the  Republican  leaders,  have  ceased 
to  be  Democrats,  and  belong  to  the  allied  army  whose  avowed  object  is  to 
elect  the  Republican  ticket  by  dividing  and  destroying  the  Democratic 
party.  (Cheers) 

Immediately  after  his  reception  at  Chicago,  Mr.  Douglas 
entered  actively  on  his  canvass  over  the  entire  State,  making 
more  than  one  hundred  speeches  in  less  than  four  months, 
and  enduring  an  unparalleled  amount  of  physical  exertion 
and  fatigue.  History  fails  to  cite  any  public  man  who  ever 
received  such  continued  ovations  at  the  hands  of  his  people 
as  greeted  Mr.  Douglas  all  through  his  Illinois  campaign. 
We  make  room  for  a  letter  which  appeared  in  one  of  the 
Chicago  papers  of  the  day,  descriptive  of  his  journey  from 
that  city  to  Bloomington,  to  fill  his  first  appointment,  with 
the  remark  that  the  same  demonstrations  of  popular  enthusi 
asm  and  manifestations  of  popular  admiration  and  love  met 
Mr.  Douglas  everywhere  through  his  canvass.  The  picture 
of  the  correspondent  does  but  bare  justice  to  the  facts  as 
they  existed. 

SENATOR   DOUGLAS  AMONG   THE   PEOPLE — PASSAGE   FROM    CHI 
CAGO     TO     SPRINGFIELD GREAT    ENTHUSIASM    ALONG     THE 

LINE   OF    THE    ST.    LOUIS   AND   ALTON   RAILROAD — GLORIOUS 
DEMONSTRATIONS    OF   THE  POPULAR   FEELING. 

BLOOMINGTON,  July  16, 1858. 

If  there  was-  ever  any  doubt  that  Senator  Dangles  possessed  the  popular 
heart  of  the  people  of  Illinois,  that  doubt  has  been  dispelled  to-day.  His 
passage  from  Chicago  to  this  place  has  been  a  perfect  ovation.  There  was 
not  a  station  or  cottage  that  the  train  passed  from  which  there  was  not  a 
greeting  and  a  "  God  speed"  sent  forth ;  and  the  evidences  of  popular  feel 
ing  evinced  in  his  favor  are  conclusive  that  the  result  in  November  will  be 
one  of  the  most  glorious  triumphs  of  the  Democracy  ever  achieved  in  this 
State. 


148  THE     LIFE     AJSD     SPEECHES     OF 

Senator  Douglas,  as  you  are  aware,  left  Chicago  in  the  9  o'clock  train 
this  morning,  on  the  St.  Louis,  Alton  and  Chicago  Railroad,  to  meet  an 
appointment  which  he  made  at  Springfield  for  to-morrow.  The  train  which 
bore  him  was  tastefully  decorated  with  flags,  the  engine  being  almost  hid 
beneath  them,  and  banners  were  also  displayed  on  the  cars  with  the  inscrip 
tion  "  Stephen  A.  Douglas,  the  Champion  of  Popular  Sovereignty."  As 
the  train  passed  along,  the  crowds  who  had  assembled  to  give  a  parting 
cheer  to  the  "  Little  Giant "  performed  their  labor  of  love  energetically  and 
well.  The  train  was  soon  out  of  Chicago  and  flying  along  the  track ;  and 
now  Mr.  Douglas,  having  a  few  moments  to  devote  to  those  "  on  board," 
shook  hands  and  exchanged  compliments  with  a  number  of  impatient  pas 
sengers  who  crowded  around  him,  anxious  to  evince  their  respect  and  high 
admiration  of  the  man. 

As  the  train  swept  through  Bridgeport,  the  employees  of  the  road  sta 
tioned  there  had  assembled  together,  and  greeted  Senator  Douglas  with 
three  hearty  cheers. 

A  little  incident  occurred  as  we  passed  Bridgeport  which  is  perhaps 
worthy  of  notice.  One  of  the  flags  with  which  the  train  was  decorated 
caught  on  the  branches  of  a  tree,  and  a  gentleman  seeing  it,  exclaimed, 
"  See,  Judge  Douglas,  there  is  one  of  your  flags  waving  from  that  tree." 
"  Yes," replied  the  Judge,  "and  before  this  campaign  is  over,  my  flags  will 
be  seen  waving  from  every  tree  in  the  State." 

At  every  station  on  the  road— at  Brighton  Course,  Summit,  Athens  and 
Lockport — the  people  were  out  waiting  an  opportunity  to  testify  their 
respect  to  their  patriot  senator  ;  and  not  a  little  interest  was  added  to  these 
demonstrations  by  the  number  of  pretty  girls  and  blooming  matrons  who 
took  part  in  them,  and  testified  by  the  waving  of  handkerchiefs  and  smiles 
of  approval  that  there  was  one  besides  their  lovers  and  husbands  who  had 
a  place  in  their  hearts. 

As  the  train  approached  Joliet,  the  shrill  whistle  of  the  engine  to  "  break 
up "  was  answered  by  the  roar  of  artillery  from  the  town ;  and  when  we 
reached  the  station,  about  11  o'clock,  we  found  some  four  or  five  hundred 
people  awaiting  us.  The  thunders  of  the  guns  were  answered  by  the 
cheers  of  welcome  by  the  crowd,  who  pressed  around  the  cars  anxious  to 
get  a  glimpse  of  Senator  Douglas.  There  being  a  delay  at  this  place  of 
twenty  minutes  for  dinner,  the  senator  spent  it  in  shaking  hands  with  and 
receiving  the  congratulations  of  those  who  had  assembled  to  see  him. 
The  beaming  countenances  of  the  sturdy  yeomanry,  whose  faces  Avere 
lighted  up  with  joy  at  meeting  the  man  whom  they  delighted  to  honor, 
showed  that  the  heart  felt  what  the  mouth  uttered.  One  fine  looking 
specimen  of  human  nature,  whose  strong,  sturdy  frame,  and  sunburnt 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  119 

healthy  cheek,  bore  testimony  to  his  having  spent  the  best  part  of  his  days 
ia  the  open  air,  exclaimed,  after  shaking  hands  with  the  senator,  "By 
G— d,  that  did  me  good !" 

At  Joliet,  a  platform  car,  decorated  with  thirteen  flags,  and  bearing  a 
twelve-pounder  and  gun-carriage,  was  hitched  on  to  the  train,  and  after 
we  left  that  town,  as  we  approached  each  station,  "  Popular  Sovereignty," 
as  the  gun  was  called,  gave  lively  notice  that  we  were  on  hand.  At  El- 
wood,  a  crowd  was  awaiting  us,  and  as  the  train  passed  through,  cheer 
after  cheer  went  up,  whilst  two  or  three  individuals  expressed  their  enthu 
siasm  by  the  discharge  of  their  revolvers. 

As  the  train  approached  Wilmington,  "Popular  Sovereignty's"  note  wa3 
echoed  by  a  piece  of  artillery  in  the  town,  and  as  we  reached  the  station, 
we  found  the  citizens,  accompanied  by  a  fine  brass  band,  awaiting  Senator 
Douglas.  The  cars  had  hardly  stopped,  when  a  gentleman,  whose  head 
was  silvered  o'er  with  age,  jumped  on  the  train,  and  seizing  Senator  Dou 
glas  by  the  hand,  cried,  "  Welcome,  Judge  Douglas,  welcome  to  Wilming 
ton,"  and  then  three  hearty  cheers,  such  as  only  the  farmers  of  the  Prairie 
State  can  give,  rose  in  the  air,  and  the  people  crowded  around  to  shake 
Mr.  Douglas  by  the  hand.  The  train  was  delayed  here  several  minutes,  in 
order  to  afford  the  people  an  opportunity  of  seeing  their  senator. 

At  all  the  other  stations — Stewart's  Grove,  Gardner,  Dwight,  Odell,  Cay 
uga,  Pontiac,  Kook  Creek,  Peoria  Junction,  Lexington,  and  Towanda,  th' 
people  were  out  awaiting  the  train,  and  greeted  Senator  Douglas  with  lou<* 
hurrahs.  At  each  of  these  stations  large  numbers  got  on  board  for  Bloom 
ington.  As  we  approached  Bloomington,  "  Popular  Sovereignty"  gave 
notice  that  we  were  about,  and  his  roar  was  answered  by  another  of  wel 
come  from  the  town.  About  5,000  people  had  assembled  here  to  meet 
Senator  Douglas,  and  the  whole  town  and  surrounding  country  were  pre 
sent  on  horseback,  in  vehicles,  and  on  foot,  to  welcome  his  arrival.  The 
train  was  overrun  with  people  who  clambered  on  top  of  the  cars,  and  tum 
bled  in  on  all  sides,  and  the  enthusiasm  manifested  was  similar  to  that 
shown  on  his  arrival  at  Chicago  on  Friday  last.  The  thunders  of  the  guns, 
the  music  of  the  band,  and  the  shouts  of  the  multitude  filled  the  air.  The 
scene  can  better  be  imagined  than  described.  The  crowd  closed  in  around 
the  cars  in  an  impenetrable  mass,  and,  taking  possession  of  Senator  Doug 
las,  they  carried  him  over  to  the  platform,  where  he  received  their  per 
sonal  welcomes.  After  some  time  spent  in  this  manner,  the  senator  was 
placed  in  an  open  carriage,  provided  by  the  Committee  of  Arrangements, 
and  the  escort,  composed  of  the  Bloomington  Rifles,  a  cavalcade  of  horse 
men,  and  citizens  on  foot,  headed  by  the  Bloomington  brass  band,  took 
up  its  march  for  the  London  House  where  rooms  had  been  engaged  by 


150       THE  LIFE  AND  SPEECHES  OF 

the  committee  for  their  guest.  Flags  were  displayed  from  the  house,  and 
strips  of  muslin  ran  along  the  balconies,  bearing  the  inscription,  "  S.  A. 
Douglas,  the  champion  of  Popular  Sovereignty."  Arriving  at  the  house, 
the  procession  was  dismissed,  and  after  giving  three  times  three  cheers  for 
Senator  Douglas,  gradually  dispersed,  to  re-assemble  at  7£  o'clock,  P.M., 
in  the  court-house  square,  for  the  purpose  of  listening  to  his  address. 

At  7  o'clock,  the  roar  of  the  cannon,  and  the  firing  of  rockets,  the  ring- 
of  the  court-house  bell,  and  the  music  of  the  band  attached  to  the  Bloom- 
ington  Guards,  who  attended  the  meeting  in  uniform,  gave  notice  to  the 
people  to  assemble ;  and  in  half  an  hour  the  large  square  surrounding  the 
court-house  was  crowded  with  people,  whilst  Washington,  Jefferson,  and 
Madison  streets  were  in  the  same  condition;  and  the  windows  and  doors 
of  the  houses  fronting  the  square  were  thronged  with  ladies  and  gentle 
men.  There  were  about  10,000  persons  in  attendance,  and  the  committee 
of  arrangements  expected  a  much  larger  number,  who  were  prevented 
from  coming  in  from  the  country  by  the  heavy  rain  which  fell  in  this 
neighborhood  all  last  night  and  to-day.  The  court-house  was  illuminated, 
and  a  stage  was  erected  on  the  west  side  for  the  meeting. 

At  about  8  o'clock,  Allen  Withers,  Esq.,  chairman  of  the  Committee  of 
Arrangements,  called  the  meeting  to  order.  Dr.  E.  R.  Roe,  in  a  very  elo 
quent  speech,  welcomed  Senator  Douglas,  and  assured  him,  on  behalf  of 
the  people  of  McLean  County,  that  his  course,  during  the  last  session  of 
Congress,  was  fully  approved  by  them,  and  that  they  were  ready  to  show 
that  approval,  in  a  substantial  manner,  at  the  polls  in  November  next. 


SPEECH    AT   BLOOMIXGTON. 

In  the  course  of  his  speech  at  Bloomington,  Mr.  Douglas 
referred  to  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850,  and  the  in 
structions  of  the  Illinois  legislature  of  1851  to  carry  out  the 
same  principle  of  self-government  in  the  organization  of  new 
Territories,  as  follows : 

Illinois  stands  proudly  forward  as  a  State  which  early  took  her  position 
in  favor  of  the  principle  of  popular  sovereignty,  as  applied  to  the  Territo 
ries  of  the  United  States.  When  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850  passed, 
predicated  upon  that  principle,  you  recollect  the  excitement  which  prevailed 
throughout  the  northern  portion  of  this  State.  I  vindicated  those  mea 
sures  then,  and  defended  myself  for  having  voted  for  them,  upon  the  groucd 


STEPHEN     A.    DOUGLAS.  151 

that  they  embodied  the  principle  that  every  people  ought  to  have  the 
privilege  of  forming  and  regulating  their  own  institutions  to  suit  them 
selves — that  each  State  had  that  right,  and  I  saw  no  reason  why  it  should 
not  be  extended  to  the  Territories.  When  the  people  of  Illinois  had  an 
opportunity  of  passing  judgment  upon  those  measures,  they  indorsed 
them  by  a  vote  of  their  representatives  in  the  legislature — sixty-one  in 
the  affirmative,  and  only  four  in  the  negative — in  which  they  asserted  that 
the  principle  embodied  in  the  measures  was  the  birthright  of  freemen,  the 
gift  of  Heaven,  a  principle  vindicated  by  our  Revolutionary  fathers,  and 
that  no  limitation  should  ever  be  placed  upon  it,  either  in  the  organization 
of  a  Territorial  government,  or  the  admission  of  a  State  into  the  Union. 
That  resolution  still  stands  unrepealed  on  the  journals  of  the  legislature 
of  Illinois.  In  obedience  to  it,  and  in  exact  conformity  with  the  principle, 
I  brought  in  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Bill,  requiring  that  the  people  should 
be  left  perfectly  free  in  the  formation  of  their  institutions,  and  in  the  or 
ganization  of  their  government.  I  now  submit  to  you  whether  I  have  not 
in  good  faith  redeemed  that  pledge,  that  the  people  of  Kansas  should  be 
teft  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  institutions  to  suit  themselves. 
(*'You  have,"  and  cheers.)  And  yet,  while  no  man  can  rise  in  any  crowd 
and  deny  that  I  have  been  faithful  to  my  principles,  and  redeemed  my 
pledge,  we  find  those  who  are  struggling  to  crush  and  defeat  me,  for  the 
very  reason  that  I  have  been  faithful  in  carrying  out  those  measures. 
("  They  can't  do  it,"  and  great  cheers.)  We  find  the  Republican  leaders 
forming  an  alliance  with  professed  Lecompton  men  to  defeat  every  Demo 
cratic  nominee,  and  elect  Republicans  in  their  places,  and  aiding  and  de 
fending  them  in  order  to  help  them  break  down  Anti-Lecompton  me» 
whom  they  acknowledge  did  right  in  their  opposition  to  Lecomptoc 
("  They  ean't  do  it.")  The  only  hope  that  Mr.  Lincoln  has  of  defeating  im_ 
for  the  Senate  rests  in  the  fact  that  I  was  faithful  to  my  principles,  and 
that  he  may  be  able,  in  consequence  of  that  fact,  to  form  a  coalition  with 
Lecompton  men  who  wish  to  defeat  me  for  that  fidelity.  ("  They  will 
never  do  it.  Never  in  the  State  of  Illinois" — and  cheers.) 

He  again  refers  to  the  coalition  between  the  federal  office 
holders  and  the  abolitionists,  to  break  down  the  Democratic 
party 

This  is  one  element  of  strength  upon  which  he  relies  to  accomplish  his 
object.  He  hopes  he  can  secure  the  few  men  claiming  to  be  friends  of  the 
Lecompton  constitution,  and  for  that  reason  you  will  find  he  does  not  say 
a  word  against  the  Lecompton  constitution  or  its  supporters.  lie  is  aa 


152  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

silent  as  the  grave  upon  that  subject.  Behold  Mr.  Lincoln  courting  Lecomp- 
ton  votes,  in  order  that  he  may  go  to  the  Senate  as  the  representative  of 
Republican  principles  !  (Laughter.)  You  know  that  the  alliance  exists. 
I  think  you  will  find  that  it  will  ooze  out  before  the  contest  is  over. 
("  That's  my  opinion,"  and  cheers.) 

Every  Republican  paper  takes  ground  with  my  Lecompton  enemies,  en 
couraging  them,  stimulating  them  in  their  opposition  to  me.  and  styling 
my  friends  bolters  from  the  Democratic  party,  and  their  Lecompton  allies 
the  true  Democratic  party  of  the  country.  If  they  think  that  they  can 
mislead  and  deceive  the  people  of  Illinois,  or  the  Democracy  of  Illinois,  by 
that  sort  of  an  unnatural  and  unholy  alliance,  I  think  they  show  very  little 
sagacity,  or  give  the  people  very  little  credit  for  intelligence.  ("  That's  so," 
and  cheers.)  It  must  be  a  contest  of  principle.  Either  the  radical  aboli 
tion  principles  of  Mr.  Lincoln  must  be  maintained,  or  the  strong,  constitu 
tional,  national  Democratic  principles  with  which  I  am  identified,  must  be 
carried  out. 

There  can  be  but  two  great  political  parties  in  this  country.  The  contest 
this  year  and  in  1860,  must  necessarily  be  between  the  Democracy  and  the 
Republicans,  if  we  can  judge  from  present  indications.  My  whole  life  has 
been  identified  with  the  Democratic  party.  (Cheers.)  I  have  devoted  all  my 
energies  to  advocating  its  principles,  and  sustaining  its  organization.  In 
this  State  the  party  was  never  better  united  and  more  harmonious  than  at 
this  time.  (Cheers.)  The  State  Convention  which  assembled  on  the  2d 
of  April,  and  nominated  Fondey  and  French,  was  regularly  called  by  the 
State  Central  Committee,  appointed  by  the  previous  State  Convention  for 
that  purpose.  The  meetings  in  each  county  in  the  State  for  the  appoint 
ment  of  delegates  to  the  convention,  were  regularly  called  by  the  county 
committees,  and  the  proceedings  in  every  county  in  the  State,  as  well  as 
in  the  State  Convention,  were  regular  in  all  respects.  No  convention  was 
ever  more  harmonious  in  its  action,  or  showed  a  more  tolerant  and  just 
spirit  toward  brother  Democrats.  The  leader^  of  the  party  there  assem 
bled  declared  their  unalterable  attachment  to  the  time-honored  principles 
and  organization  of  the  Democratic  party,  and  to  the  Cincinnati  platform. 
They  declared  that  that  platform  was  the  only  authoritative  exposition  of 
Democratic  principles,  and  that  it  must  so  stand  until  changed  by  another 
National  Convention  ;  that  in  the  meantime  they  would  make  no  new  tests, 
and  submit  to  none  ;  that  they  would  proscribe  no  Democrat,  nor  permit  the 
proscription  of  Democrats  because  of  their  opinions  upon  Lecomptonism, 
or  upon  any  other  issue  which  has  arisen ;  but  would  recognize  all  men  as 
Democrats  who  remained  inside  of  the  organization,  preserved  the  usages 
of  the  party,  and  supported  its  nominees.  (Great  applause.)  These  bolt- 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  153 

ing  Democrats  who  now  claim  to  be  the  peculiar  friends  of  the  national 
administration,  and  have  formed  an  alliance  with  Mr.  Lincoln  and  the  Re 
publicans,  for  the  purpose  of  defeating  the  Democratic  party,  have  ceased 
to  claim  fellowship  with  the  Democratic  organization,  have  entirely  sepa 
rated  themselves  from  it,  and  are  endeavoring  to  build  up  a  faction  in  the 
State,  not  with  the  hope  or  expectation  of  electing  any  one  man  who  pro 
fesses  to  be  a  Democrat,  to  office  in  any  county  in  the  State,  but  merely  to 
secure  the  defeat  of  the  Democratic  nominees,  and  the  election  of  Repub 
licans  in  their  places.  "What  excuse  can  any  honest  Democrat  have  for 
abandoning  the  Democratic  organization,  and  joining  with  the  Republi 
cans  ("None!")  to  defeat  our  nomine-es,  in  view  of  the  platform  estab 
lished  by  the  State  Convention?  They  cannot  pretend  that  they  were  pro 
scribed  because  of  their  opinions  upon  Lecompton  or  any  other  question, 
for  the  Convention  expressly  declared  that  they  recognize  all  as  good  De 
mocrats  who  remained  inside  of  the  organization,  and  abided  by  the  nomi 
nations.  If  the  question  is  settled,  or  is  to  be  considered  as  finally  dis 
posed  of  by  the  vote  on  the  3d  of  August,  what  possible  excuse  can  any 
good  Democrat  make  for  keeping  up  a  division  for  the  purpose  of  pro 
strating  his  party,  after  that  election  is  over,  and  the  controversy  has  ter 
minated. 

DEED    SCOTT   DECISION NEGRO   EQUALITY. 

But  I  must  now  bestow  a  few  words  upon  Mr.  Lincoln's  main  objection 
to  the  Dred  Scott  decision.  He  is  not  going  to  submit  to  it.  Not  that  he 
is  going  to  make  war  upon  it  with  force  of  arms.  But  he  is  going  to  appeal 
and  reverse  it  in  some  way ;  he  cannot  tell  us  how.  I  reckon  not  by  a  writ 
of  error,  because  I  do  not  know  where  he  would  prosecute  that,  except 
before  an  Abolition  Society.  ("  That's  it,"  and  applause.)  And  when  he 
appeals,  he  does  not  exactly  tell  us  to  whom  he  will  appeal,  except  it  be  to 
the  Republican  party,  and  I  have  yet  to  learn  that  the  Republican  party, 
under  the  Constitution,  has  judicial  powers  ;  but  he  is  going  to  appeal  from 
it  and  reverse  it  either  by  an  act  of  Congress,  or  by  turning  out  the  judges,  or 
in  some  other  way.  And  why  ?  Because  he  says  that  that  decision  deprives 
the  negro  of  the  benefit  of  that  clause  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
which  entitles  the  citizens  of  each  State  to  all  the  privileges  and  immuni 
ties  of  citizens  of  the  several  States.  Well,  it  is  very  true  that  the  decision 
does  have  that  effect.  By  deciding  that  a  negro  is  not  a  citizen,  of  course 
it  denies  to  him  the  rights  and  privileges  awarded  to  citizens  of  the  United 
Sta*es.  It  is  this  that  Mr.  Lincoln  will  not  submit  to.  Why  ?  For  the 
palpable  reason  that  he  wishes  to  confer  upon  the  negro  all  the  righu. 


15'i  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

privileges,  and  immunities  of  citizens  of  the  several  States.  I  will  not 
quarrel  with  Mr.  Lincoln  for  his  views  on  that  subject.  I  have  no  doubt 
that  he  is  conscientious  in  them.  I  have  not  the  slightest  idea  but  that  he 
conscientiously  believes  that  a  negro  ought  to  enjoy  and  exercise  all  the 
rights  and  privileges  given  to  white  men  ;  but  I  do  not  agree  with  him,  and 
hence  I  cannot  concur  with  him.  I  believe  that  this  government  of  ours 
was  formed  on  the  white  basis.  (Prolonged  cheering.)  I  believe  that  it 
was  established  by  white  men — (applause) — by  men  of  European  birth  and 
descended  of  European  races,  for  the  benefit  of  white  men  and  their  pos 
terity  in  all  time  to  come.  ("  Hear,  hear.'')  I  do  not  believe  that  it  was 
the  design  or  intention  of  the  signers  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence 
or  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  to  include  negroes  or  other  inferior 
races  with  white  men  as  citizens.  (Cheers.)  Our  fathers  had  at  that  day 
seen  the  evil  consequences  of  conferring  civil  and  political  rights  upon  the 
negro  in  the  Spanish  and  French  colonies  on  the  American  continent,  and 
the  adjacent  islands.  In  Mexico,  in  Central  America,  in  South  America, 
and  in  the  West  India  Islands,  where  the  negro,  and  men  ot  all  colors  and 
all  races  are  put  on  an  equality  by  law,  the  effect  of  political  amalgamation 
can  be  seen.  Ask  any  of  those  gallant  young  men  in  your  own  county, 
who  who  went  to  Mexico  to  fight  the  battles  of  their  country,  in  what 
friend  Lincoln  considers  an  unjust  and  unholy  war,  and  hear  what  they 
will  tell  you  in  regard  to  the  amalgamation  of  races  in  that  country.  Amal 
gamation  there,  first  political,  then  social,  has  led  to  demoralization  and 
degradation  until  it  has  reduced  the  people  below  the  point  of  capacity  for 
self-government.  Our  fathers  knew' what  the  effect  of  it  would  be,  and 
from  the  time  they  planted  foot  on  the  American  continent,  not  only  those 
who  landed  at  Jamestown,  but  at  Plymouth  Rock  and  all  other  points  on 
the  coast,  they  pursued  the  policy  of  confining  civil  and  political  rights  to 
the  white  race,  and  excluding  the  negro  in  all  cases.  Still  Mr.  Lincoln  con 
scientiously  believes  that  it  is  his  duty  to  advocate  negro  citizenship.  He 
wants  to  give  the  negro  the  privileges  of  citizenship.  He  quotes  Scripture 
again,  and  says:  "As  your  Father  in  Heaven  is  perfect,  be  ye  also  per 
fect,"  and  he  applies  that  Scriptural  quotation  to  all  classes,  not  that  he 
expects  us  all  to  be  as  perfect  as  our  Master,  but  as  nearly  perfect  as  pos 
sible.  In  other  words,  he  is  willing  to  give  the  negro  an  equality  under 
the  law,  in  order  that  he  may  approach  as  near  perfection  or  an  equality 
with  the  white  man  as  possible.  To  this  same  end  he  quotes  the  Declara 
tion  of  Independence  in  these  words :  "We  hold  these  truths  to  be  self- 
evident  that  all  men  were  created  equal,  and  endowed  by  their  Creator 
with  certain  inalienable  rights,  among  which  are  life,  liberty,  and  the  pur 
suit  of  happiness,"  and  goes  on  to  argue  that  the  negro  was  included,  or 


STEPHEN     A.    DOUGLAS.  155 

intended  to  be  included,  in  that  declaration  by  the  signers  of  the  paper. 
He  says  that  by  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  therefore,  all  kinds  of 
men,  negroes  included,  were  created  equal,  and  endowed  by  their  Creator 
with  certain  inalienable  rights,  and  further,  that  the  right  of  the  negro  to 
be  on  an  equality  with  the  white  man  is  a  Divine  right  conferred  by  the 
Almighty,  and  rendered  inalienable  according  to  the  Declaration  of  Inde 
pendence.  Hence  no  human  law  or  constitution  can  deprive  the  negro  of 
that  equality  with  the  white  man  to  which  he  is  entitled  by  Divine  law. 
("  Higher  law.")  Yes,  higher  law.  Now,  I  do  not  question  Mr.  Lincoln's 
sincerity  on  this  point.  He  believes  that  the  negro  by  the  Divine  law  is 
created  the  equal  of  the  white  man,  and  that  no  human  law  can  deprive 
him  of  that  equality  thus  secured  ;  and  he  contends  that  the  negro  ought, 
therefore,  to  have  all  the  rights  and  privileges  of  citizenship  on  an  equality 
with  the  white  man.  In  order  to  accomplish  this,  the  first  thing  that  would 
have  to  be  done  in  this  State  would  be  to  blot  out  of  our  State  Constitution 
that  clause  which  prohibits  negroes  from  coming  into  this  State  and  making 
it  an  African  colony,  and  permit  them  to  come  and  spread  over  these  charm 
ing  prairies  until  in  midday  they  shall  look  black  as  night.  When  our 
friend  Lincoln  gets  all  his  colored  brethren  around  him  here,  he  will  then 
raise  them  to  perfection  as  fast  as  possible,  and  place  them  on  an  equality 
with  the  white  man,  first  removing  all  legal  restrictions,  because  they  are 
our  equals  by  Divine  law  and  there  should  be  no  such  restrictions.  He 
wants  them  to  vote.  I  am  opposed  to  it.  If  they  had  a  vote  I  reckon  they 
would  all  vote  for  him  in  preference  to  me,  entertaining  the  views  I  do. 
(Laughter.)  But  that  matters  not.  The  position  he  has  taken  on  this 
question  not  only  presents  him  as  claiming  for  them  the  right  to  vote,  but 
their  right,  under  the  Divine  law  and  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  to 
be  elected  to  office,  to  become  members  of  the  legislature,  to  go  to  Con 
gress,  and  to  become  governors,  or  United  States  senators  (laughter  and 
cheers),  or  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court;  and  I  suppose  that  when  they 
control  that  court  that  they  will  probably  reverse  the  Dred  Scott  decision. 
(Laughter.)  He  is  going  to  bring  negroes  here,  and  give  them  the  right 
of  citizenship,  the  right  of  voting,  the  right  of  holding  office  and  sitting  on 
juries,  and  what  else  ?  "Why,  he  would  permit  them  to  marry,  would  he 
not?  and  if  he  gives  them  that  right,  I  suppose  he  will  let  them  marry 
whom  they  please,  provided  they  marry  their  equals.  (Laughter.)  If  the 
Divine  law  declares  that  the  white  man  is  the  equal  of  the  negro  woman; 
that  they  are  on  a  perfect  equality;  I  suppose  he  admits  the  right  of  the 
negro  woman  to  marry  the  white  man.  (Renewed  laughter.)  In  other 
words,  his  doctrine  that  the  negro  by  Divine  law  is  placed  on  a  perfect 
equality  with  the  white  man,  and  that  that  equality  is  recognized  by  the 


156  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

Declaration  of  Independence,  leads  him  necessarily  to  establishing  negro 
equality  under  the  law;  but  whether  even  then  they  would  be  so  in  fact, 
would  depend  upon  the  degree  of  virtue  and  intelligence  they  possessed, 
and  certain  other  qualities  that  are  matters  of  taste  rather  than  of  law. 
(Laughter.)  I  do  not  understand  Mr.  Lincoln  as  saying  that  he  expects  to 
make  them  our  equals  socially,  or  by  intelligence,  nor,  in  fact,  as  citizens, 
but  that  he  wishes  to  make  them  equal  under  the  law,  and  then  say  to  them 
"  as  your  Master  in  Heaven  is  perfect,  be  ye  also  perfect."  Well,  I  confess 
to  you,  my  fellow-citizens,  that  I  am  utterly  opposed  to  that  system  of 
abolition  philosophy.  ("  So  am  I,"  and  cheers.) 

MIND    YOUR    OWN    BUSINESS   AND    LET    YOUR    NEIGHBORS 
ALONE — CLAY   AND   WEBSTER. 

In  Kentucky  they  -will  not  give  a  negro  any. political  rights  or  any  civil 
rights.  I  shall  not  argue  the  question  whether  Kentucky  in  so  doing 
has  decided  right  or,  wrong,  wisely  or  unwisely.  It  is  a  question  for 
Kentucky  to  decide  for  herself.  I  believe  that  the  Kentuckians  have 
consciences  as  well  as  ourselves ;  they  have  as  keen  a  perception  of 
their  religious,  moral  and  social  duties  as  we  have,  and  I  am  willing  that 
they  shall  decide  this  slavery  question  for  themselves,  and  be  accountable  to 
their  God  for  their  action.  It  is  not  for  me  to  arraign  them  for  what  they 
do.  I  will  not  judge  them  lest  I  shall  be  judged.  Let  Kentucky  mind  her 
own  business,  and  take  care  of  her  negroes,  and  we  attend  to  our  own 
affairs,  and  take  care  of  our  negroes,  and  we  will  be  the  best  of  friends ; 
but  if  Kentucky  attempts  to  interfere  with  us,  or  we  with  her,  there  will  be 
strife,  there  will  be  discord,  there  will  be  relentless  hatred,  there  will  be 
everything  but  fraternal  feeling  and  brotherly  love.  It  is  not  necessary 
that  you  should  enter  Kentucky  and  interfere  in  that  State,  to  use  the 
language  of  Mr.  Lincoln.  It  is  just  as  offensive  to  interfere  from  this 
State,  or  send  your  missiles  over  there.  I  care  not  whether  an  enemy,  if 
he  is  going  to  assault  us,  shall  actually  come  into  our  State  or  come  along 
the  line  and  throw  his  bomb-shells  over  to  explode  in  our  midst.  Suppose 
England  should  plant  a  battery  on  the  Canadian  side  of  the  Niagara  River, 
opposite  Buffalo,  and  throw  bomb-shells  over,  which  would  explode  in 
Main  street,  in  that  city,  and  destroy  the  buildings,  and  that  when  we  pro 
tested,  -she  should  say,  in  the  language  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  that  she  never 
dreamed  of  coming  into  the  United  States  to  interfere  with  us,  and  that 
she  was  just  throwing  her  bombs  over  the  line  from  her  own  side,  which 
Bhe  had  a  right  to  do,  would  that  explanation  satisfy  us  ?  ("  No  ;"  "  Strike 
him  again.")  So  it  is  with  Mr.  Lincoln.  He  is  not  going  into  Kentucky 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  151 

out  he  will  plant  his  batteries  on  this  side  of  the  Ohio,  where  he  is  saft 
and  secure  for  a  retreat,  and  will  then  throw  his  bomb-shells — his  abolition 
documents — over  the  river,  and  will  carry  on  a  political  warfare  and  get 
up  strife  between  the  North  and  South  until  he  elects  a  sectional  President, 
reduces  the  South  to  the  condition  of  dependent  colonies,  raises  the  negro 
to  an  equality,  and  forces  the  South  to  submit  to  the  doctrine  that  a  house 
divided  against  itself  cannot  stand,  that  the  Union  divided  into  half  slave 
States  and  half  free  cannot  endure,  that  they  must  all  be  slave  or  they 
must  all  be  free,  and  that  as  we  in  the  North  are  in  the  majority  we  will 
not  permit  them  to  be  all  slave,  and,  therefore,  they  in  the  South  must 
consent  to  the  States  all  being  free.  (Laughter.)  No\v,  fellow-citizens,  I 
submit  whether  these  doctrines  are  consistent  with  the  peace  and  harmony 
of  this  Union.  ("  No,  no.")  I  submit  to  you,  whether  they  are  consistent 
with  our  duty  as  citizens  of  a  common  confederacy ;  whether  they  are 
consistent  with  the  principles  which  ought  to  govern  brethren  of  the  same 
family.  I  recognize  all  the  people  of  these  States,  North  and  South,  East 
and  West,  old  or  new,  Atlantic  and  Pacific,  as  our  brethren,  flesh  of  one 
flesh,  and  I  will  do  no  act  unto  them  that  I  would  not  be  willing  they 
should  do  unto  us.  I  would  apply  the  same  Christian  rule  to  the  States  of 
this  Union  that' we  are  taught  to  apply  to  individuals,  "  do  unto  others  as 
you  would  have  others  do  unto  you,"  and  this  would  secure  peace.  Why 
should  this  slavery  agitation  be  kept  up  ?  Does  it  benefit  the  white  man 
or  the  slave  ?  Who  does  it  benefit  except  the  Republican  politicians,  who 
use  it  as  their  hobby  to  ride  into  office.  (Cheers.)  Why,  I  repeat,  should 
it  be  continued  ?  Why  cannot  we  be  content  to  administer  this  govern 
ment  as  it  was  made — a  confederacy  of  sovereign  and  independent  States. 
Let  us  recognize  the  sovereignty  and  independence  of  each  State,  refrain 
from  interfering  with  the  domestic  institutions  and  regulations  of  other 
States,  permit  the  Territories  and  new  States  to  decide  their  institutions 
for  themselves  as  we  did  when  we  were  in  their  condition  ;  blot  out  these 
lines  of  North  and  South  and  resort  back  to  those  lines  of  State  boundaries 
which  the  Constitution  has  marked  out  and  engraved  upon  the  face  of 
the  country ;  have  no  other  dividing  lines  but  these  and  we  will  be  one 
united,  harmonious  people,  with  fraternal  feelings  and  no  discord  or  dis 
sension.  (Cheers.) 

These  are  my  views  and  these  are  the  principles  to  which  I  have  devoted 
all  my  energies  since  1850,  when  I  acted  side  by  side  with  the  immor 
tal  Clay  and  the  godlike  Webster  in  that  memorable  struggle  in  which 
Whigs  and  Democrats  united  upon  a  common  platform  of  patriotism  and 
the  Constitution,  throwing  aside  partisan  feelings  in  order  to  restore  peace 
aud  harmony  to  a  distracted  country.  And  when  I  stood  beside  the  death 


158  THE     LIFE     AND      SPEECHES      OF 

bed  of  Mr.  Clay  and  heard  him  refer  with  feelings  and  emotions  of  the 
deepest  solicitude  to  the  welfare  of  the  country,  and  saw  that  he  looked 
upon  the  principle  embodied  in  the  great  Compromise  measures  of  1850, 
the  principle  of  the  Nebraska  Bill,  the  doctrine  of  leaving  each  State  and 
Territory  free  to  decide  its  institutions  for  itself,  as  the  only  means  by 
which  the  peace  of  the  country  could  be  preserved,  and  the  Union  per 
petuated,  I  pledged  him,  on  that  death-bed  of  his,  that  so  long  as  I  lived 
my  eaergies  should  be  devoted  to  the  vindication  of  that  principle,  and  of 
his  fame  as  connected  with  it.  ("  Hear,  hear,"  and  great  enthusiasm.)  I 
gave  the  same  pledge  to  the  great  expounder  of  the  Constitution,  he  who 
has  been  called  the  "godlike  Webster."  I  looked  up  to  Clay  and  him  as 
a  son  would  to  a  father,  and  I  call  upon  the  people  of  Illinois,  and  the 
people  of  the  whole  Union  to  bear  testimony  that  never  since  the  sod  has 
been  laid  upon  the  graves  of  those  eminent  statesmen  have  I  failed  on  any 
occasion  to  vindicate  the  principle  with  which  the  last  great,  crowning  acts 
of  their  lives  were  identified,  or  to  vindicate  their  names  whenever  they 
have  been  assailed  ;  and  now  my  life  and  energy  are  devoted  to  this  great 
work  as  the  means  of  preserving  this  Union.  (Cheers.)  This  Union  can 
only  be  preserved  by  maintaining  the  fraternal  feeling  between  the  North 
and  the  South,  the  East  and  the  "West.  If  that  good  feeling  can  be  pre 
served  the  Union  will  be  as  perpetual  as  the  fame  of  its  great  founders.  It 
can  be  maintained  by  preserving  the  sovereignty  of  the  States,  the  right  of 
each  State  and  each  Territory  to  settle  its  domestic  concerns  for  itself,  and 
the  duty  of  each  to  refrain  from  interfering  with  the  other  in  any  of  its 
local  or  domestic  institutions.  Let  that  be  done  and  the  Union  will  be 
perpetual ;  let  that  be  done,  and  this  republic,  which  began  with  thirteen 
States,  and  which  now  numbers  thirty-two,  which  when  it  began  only 
extended  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Mississippi  but  now  reaches  to  the 
Pacific,  may  yet  expand  North  and  South  until  it  covers  the  whole  conti 
nent  and  becomes  one  vast  ocean-bound  confederacy.  (Great  cheering.) 
Then,  my  friends,  the  path  of  duty,  of  honor,  of  patriotism  is  plain. 
There  are  a  few  simple  principles  to  be  preserved.  Bear  in  mind  the 
dividing  line  between  State  rights  and  federal  authority  ;  let  us  maintain 
the  great  principles  of  popular  sovereignty,  of  State  rights,  and  of  the 
Federal  Union  as  the  Constitution  has  made  it,  and  this  republic  will 
endure  forever. 

UNITY    OF   THE    DEMOCRATIC    PAETY. 

In  the  course  of  Mr.  Douglas'  speech  at  Edwardsvillc,  on 
the  6th  of  August,  an  old  Democrat  sprang  to  his  feet  and 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  159 

exclaimed,  "  These  are  the  principles  of  all  us  Douglas  Demo 
crats  !"     To  which  Mr.  Douglas  replied  : 

My  friend — you  will  pardon  me  for  telling  you  that  there  is  no  such 
term  ia"  the  Democratic  vocabulary  as  Douglas  Democrats.  Let  there  be  no 
divisions  in  our  ranks — no  such  distinction  as  Douglas  Democrats,  or 
Buchanan  Democrat^,  or  any  other  peculiar  kind  of  Democrats.  Let  us 
retain  the  old  nameyof  Democrat,  and  under  that  name  recognize  all  men 
as  good  Democrats 'who  stand  firmly  by  the  principles  and  organization  of 
the  party,  and  support  its  regular  nominations.  Let  us  have  no  divisions  in 
our  ranks  on  account  of  past  differences,  but  treating  bygones  as  bygones 
let  the  party  be  a  unit  in  the  accomplishment  of  the  great  mission  which  it 
has  to  perform. 

This  sentiment  was  received  with  rapturous  applause. 


.    SPEECH  AT   WINCHESTER — TOUCHING  INCIDENTS. 

At  \Yinchester,  where  he  settled  when  he  first  emigrated 
to  Illinois,  in  1833,  he  responded  to  the  address  of  welcome, 
thus : 

To -say  that  I  am  profoundly  impressed  with  the  keenest  gratitude  for 
the  kind  and  cordial  welcome  you  have  given  me,  in  the  eloquent  and  too 
partial  remarks  which  have  been  addressed  to  me,  is  but  a  feeble  expres 
sion  of  the  emotions  of  my  heart.  There  is  no  spot  in  this  vast  globe 
which  fills  me  with  such  emotions  as  when  I  come  to  this  place,  and  recog 
nize  the  faces  of  my  old  and  good  friends  who  now  surround  me  and  bid 
me  welcome.  •  Twenty-five  years  ago  I  entered  this  town  on  foot,  with  my 
•  coat  upon  my  arm,  without  an  acquaintance  in  a  thousand  miles,  and  with 
out  knowing  where  I  could  get  money  to  pay  a  week's  board.  Here  I 
made  the  first  six  dollars  I  ever  earned  in  my  life,  and  obtained  the  first 
regular  occupation  that  I  ever  pursued.  For  the  first  time  in  my  life  I 
then  felt  that  the  responsibilities  of  manhood  were  upon  me,  although  I 
was  under  age,  for  I  bad  none  to  advise  with,  and  knew  no  one  upon 
whom  I  had  a  right  to  call  for  assistance  or  for  friendship.  Here  I  found 
the  then  settlers  of  the  country  my  friends — my  first  start  in  life  was  taken 
here,  not  only  as  a  private  citizen,  but  my  first  election  to  public  office  by 
the  people  was  conferred  upon  me  by  those  whom  I  am  now  addressing, 
and  by  their  fathers.  A  quarter  of  a  century  has  passed,  and  that  pen- 


1GO  THE     LIFE    AND     SPEECHES     OF 

niless  boy  stands  before  you,  with  his  heart  full  and  gushing  with  the  sen 
timents  which  such  associations  and  recollections  necessarily  inspire. 

In  the  midst  of  that  portion  of  his  speech,  in  which  ho 
was  vindicating  the  doctrine  of  popular  sovereignty,  applica 
ble  to  the  Territories,  one  of  his  early  friends  exclaimed,  in  a 
loud  voice,  "Stephen,  you  shall  be  the  next  President;"  to 
which  Mr.  Douglas  instantly  replied  : 

My  friend,  I  appreciate  the  kindness  of  heart  which  makes  you  put  forth 
that  prediction,  but  will  assure  you  that  it  is  more  important  to  this  coun 
try,  to  your  children  and  to  mine,  that  the  grea<;  principles  which  we  are 
now  discussing  shall  be  carried  out  in  good  faith  by  the  party,  than  it  is 
that  I  or  any  other  man  shall  be  President  of  the  United  States.  (Three 
cheers.)  I  am  also  free  to  say  to  you  that  whenever  the  question  arises 
with  me  whether  I  shall  be  elevated  to  the  Presidency  or  any  other  high 
position,  by  the  sacrifice  of  my  principles,  I  will  stand  by  my  principles 
and  allow  the  position  to  take  care  of  itself.  (Three  cheers.)  I  have 
always  admired  that  great  sentiment  put  forth  by  the  illustrious  Clay,  that 
he  would  rather  be  right  than  be  President.  ("  Good.")  I  say  to  you  that 
1  have  more  pride  in  my  history  connected  with  the  vindication  of  this 
great  principle  of  popular  sovereignty  than  I  would  have  in  a  thousand 
Presidencies.  (Three  cheers.) 

Mr.  Douglas,  again  advocating  that  "  by-gones  be  by 
gones,"  when  Kansas  rejected  the  English  bill,  said,  in  a 
speech  at  Pittsfield  : 

By  the  rejection  of  the  Lecompton  constitution  the  controversy  which 
it  caused  is  terminated  forever,  and  there  will  be  no  cause  for  reviving  it, 
and  it  never  will  be  revived  unless  it  is  brought  up  in  an  improper  and 
mischievous  manner,  for  improper  and  mischievous  purposes.  I  say  that 
the  controversy  can  never  rise  again  if  we  act  properly,  and  for  this  rea 
son:  the  President  of  the  United  States,  in  his  annual  message,  declared 
that  he  regretted  that  the  Lecompton  constitution  had  not  been  submitted 
to  the  people.  I  joined  him  in  that  regret,  and  thus  far  we  agreed.  He 
further  declared  in  that  message,  that  it  was  a  just  and  sound  principle  to 
require  the  submission  of  every  constitution  to  the  people  who  were  to 
live  under  it,  and  to  this  I  also  subscribed.  He  then  declared  that,  in  his 
opinion^  the  example  set  in  the  Minnesota  case,  wherein  Congress  required 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  161 

the  submission  of  the  constitution  to  the  people,  should  be  followed  here 
after  forever  as  a  rule  of  action ;  in  which  opinion  I  heartily  concurred. 
So  far  we  agreed  perfectly,  and  were  together.  Well,  then,  what  did  we 
differ  about  ?  He  said  that  while  it  was  a  sound  principle  that  the  consti 
tution  should  be  submitted  to  the  people,  and  while  he  hoped  that  here 
after  Congress  would  always  require  it  to  be  done,  yet  that  there  were  such 
circumstances  connected  with  Kansas  as  rendered  it  politic  and  expedient 
to  admit  her  unconditionally  under  the  Lecompton  constitution.  I  differed 
with  him  on  that  one  point,  and  it  was  the  whole  matter  at  issue  between 
him  and  me,  his  friends  and  mine.  That  point  is  now  decided.  The  peo 
ple  of  Kansas  have  set  it  at  rest  forever,  and  I  trust  that  he  is  satisfied 
with  their  decision  as  well  as  myself.  That  being  the  case,  why  should  we 
not  come  together  in  the  future  and  stand  firmly  by  his  recommendation — 
that  hereafter  Congress  shall,  as  in  the  Minnesota  case,  require  the  consti 
tution  of  all  new  States  to  be  submitted  to  the  people  in  all  cases  ?  If  we 
only  do  stand  by  that  principle  in  the  future,  another  Lecompton  contro 
versy  can  never  arise — the  friends  of  self-government  will  then  all  be 
United,  and  there  will  be  no  more  discord  or  dissensions  in  our  ranks. 
Why  not  rally  on  that  plank  as  the  common  plank  in  the  platform  of  our 
party,  upon  which  not  only  all  Democrats,  but  all  national  men,  all  friends 
of  popular  sovereignty,  can  stand  together,  shoulder  to  shoulder. 


THE   FKEEPORT   SPEECH. 

Iii  the  joint  debate  at  Freeport,  Mr.  Lincoln  propounded 
to  Mr.  Douglas  a  series  of  questions,  and  among  them  was 
the  following,  to  which  he  desired  an  explicit  reply  : 

"  Can  the  people  of  a  Territory  of  the  United  States  in 
any  lawful  way,  againsfc  the  wishes  of  any  citizen  of  the 
United  States,  exclude  slavery  from  its  limits  prior  to  the 
formation  of  a  State  constitution  ?" 

To  this  question  Mr.  Douglas  gave  an  affirmative  reply,  in 
accordance  with  the  opinions  which  lie  had  so  often  ex 
pressed,  in  1850,  during  the  pendency  of  the  Compromise 
measures,  and  in  1854,  in  support  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska 
Bill,  and  in  harmony  with  the  known  opinions  of  the  most 
eminent  men  of  the  Democratic  party,  and  especially  of 


162  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

General  Cass,  in  his  Nicholson  letter,  and  of  Mr.  Buchanan, 
in  his  letter  accepting  the  Cincinnati  nomination. 

It  being  a  joint  debate,  in  which  his  time  was  limited,  and 
having  a  large  number  of  other  questions  to  answer,  Mr. 
Douglas  contented  himself  with  a  direct  and  unequivocal 
answer,  without  entering  into  any  argument  in  support  of  the 
propositions.  His  reply,  as  published  in  the  unreviscd 
report  of  the  debate,  is  as  follows : 

The  next  question  propounded  to  me  by  Mr.  Lincoln  is,  can  the  people 
of  a  Territory  in  any  lawful  way  against  the  wishes  of  any  citizen  of  the 
United  States,  exclude  slavery  from  their  limits  prior  to  the  formation  of 
a  State  constitution?  I  answer  emphatically,  as  Mr.  Lincoln  has  heard 
me  answer  a  hundred  times  from  every  stump  iu  Illinois,  that  in  my  opinion 
the  people  of  a  Territory  can,  by  lawful  means,  exclude  slavery  from  their 
limits  prior  to  the  formation  of  a  State  constitution.  (Enthusiastic  ap 
plause.)  Mr.  Lincoln  knew  that  I  had  answered  that  question  over  and 
over  again.  He  heard  me  argue  the  Nebraska  Bill  on  that  principle  all 
over  the  State  in  1854,  in  1855  and  in  1856,  and  he  has  no  excuse  for  pre 
tending  to  be  in  doubt  as  to  my  position  on  that  question.  It  matters  not 
what  way  the  Supreme  Court  may  hereafter  decide  as  to  the  abstract  ques 
tion  whether  slavery  may  or  may  not  go  into  a  Territory  under  the  consti 
tution  ;  the  people  have  the  lawful  means  to  introduce  it  or  exclude  it  as 
they  please,  for  the  reason  that  slavery  cannot  exist  a  day  or  an  hour  any 
where,  unless  it  is  supported  by  local  police  regulations.  (Right,  right.) 
Those  police  regulations  can  only  be  established  by  the  local  legislature, 
and  if  the  people  are  opposed  to  slavery  they  will  elect  representatives  to 
that  body  who  will  by  unfriendly  legislation  effectually  prevent  the  intro 
duction  of  it  into  their  midst.  If,  on  the  contrary,  they  are  for  it,  theii 
legislation  will  favor  its  extension.  Hence,  no  matter  what  the  decision 
of  the  Supreme  Court  may  be  on  that  abstract  question,  still  the  right  of 
the  people  to  make  a  slave  Territory  or  a  free  Territory  is  perfect  and  com 
plete  under  the  Nebraska  Bill.  I  hope  Mr.  Lincoln  deems  my  answer  satis 
factory  on  that  point. 

MR.    DOUGLAS   AT   ALTON— KEBUKES    EXECUTIVE   DICTATTOX. 

And  now  this  warfare  is  made  on  me  because  I  would  not  surrender  my 
convictions  of  duty,  because  I  would  not  abandon  my  constituency,  and  re 
ceive  the  orders  of  the  Executive  authorities  how  I  should  vote  in  tho 


STEPHEN     A.    DOUGLAS.  163 

Senate  of  the  United  States.  ("Never  do  it,"  three  cheers,  etc.)  I  hold 
that  an  attempt  to  control  the  Senate  on  the  part  of  the  Executive  is  sub 
versive  of  the  principles  of  our  Constitution.  ("That's  right.")  The 
Executive  department  is  independent  of  the  Senate,  and  the  Senate  is  in 
dependent  of  the  President.  In  matters  of  legislation  the  President  has  a 
veto  on  the  action  of  the  Senate,  and  in  appointments  and  treaties  the 
Senate  has  a  veto  on  the  President.  He  has  no  more  right  to  tell  me  how 
I  shall  vote  03.  his  appointments,  than  I  have  to  tell  him  whether  he  shall 
veto  or  approve  a  bill  that  the  Senate  has  passed.  Whenever  you  recog 
nize  the  right  of  the  Executive  to  say  to  a  senator,  "  Do  this,  or  I  will  take 
off  the  heads  of  your  friends,"  you  convert  this  government  from  a 
republic  into  a  despotism.  (Hear,  hear,  and  cheers.)  Whenever  you 
recognize  the  right  of  a  President  to  say  to  a  member  of  Congress,  "  Yoto 
as  I  tell  you,  or  I  will  bring  a  power  to  bear  against  you  at  home  which 
will  crush  you,"  you  destroy  the  independence  of  the  representative,  and 
convert  him  into  a  tool  of  Executive  power.  ("  That's  so,"  and  applause.) 
I  resisted  this  invasion  of  the  constitutional  rights  of  a  senator,  and  I 
intend  to  resist  it  as  long  as  I  have  a  voice  to  speak,  or  a  vote  to  give. 
Yet,  Mr.  Buchanan  cannot  provoke  me  to  abandon  one  iota  of  Democratic 
principles  out  of  revenge  or  hostility  to  his  course.  ("  Good,  good,  and 
three  cheers  for  Douglas.")  I  stand  by  the  platform  of  the  Democratic 
party,  and  by  its  organization,  and  support  its  nominees.  If  there  are 
any  who  choose  to  bolt,  the  fact  only  shows  that  they  are  not  as  good 
Democrats  as  I  am.  ("  That's  so,"  "  good,"  and  applause.) 


UNION    OF   NATIONAL   MEN   FOE   SAKE    OF   THE   UNION. 

My  friends,  there  never  was  a  time  when  it  was  as  important  for  the 
Democratic  party,  for  all  national  men,  to  rally  and  stand  together  as  it  is 
to-day.  We  find  all  sectional  men  giving  up  past  differences  and  com 
bining  on  the  one  question  of  slavery ;  and  when  we  find  sectional  men 
thus  uniting,  we  should  unite  to  resist  them  and  their  treasonable  designs. 
Such  was  the  case  in  1850,  when  Clay  left  the  quiet  and  peace  of  his  home 
and  again  entered  upon  public  life  to  quell  agitation  and  restore  peace  to  a 
distracted  Union.  Then  we  Democrats,  with  Cass  at  our  heau,  ivelcomed 
Henry  Clay,  whom  the  whole  nation  regarded  as  having  been  preserved  by 
God  for  the  times.  He  became  our  leader  in  that  great  fight,  and  we 
rallied  around  him  the  same  as  the  Whigs  rallied  around  old  Hickory 
in  1832,  to  put  down  nullification.  (Cheers.)  Thus  you  see  that 


THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

whilst  Whigs  and  Democrats  fought  fearlessly  in  old  times  abou» 
banks,  the  tariff  distribution,  the  specie  circular,  and  the  sub-treasury, 
all  united  as  a  band  of  brothers  when  the  peace,  harmony,  or  integ 
rity  of  the  Union  was  imperilled.  (Tremendous  applause.)  It  was  so 
in  1850,  when  abolitionism  had  even  so  far  divided  this  country,  North  and 
South,  as  to  endanger  the  peace  of  the  Union ;  Whigs  and  Democrats 
united  in  establishing  the  Compromise  measures  of  that  year,  and  restoring 
tranquillity  and  good  feeling.  These  measures  passed  on  the  joint  action 
of  the  two  parties.  They  rested  on  the  great  principle  that  the  people  of 
each  State  and  each  Territory  should  be  left  perfectly  free  to  form  and 
regulate  their  domestic  institutions  to  suit  themselves.  You  Whigs  and 
we  Democrats  justified  them  on  that  principle.  In  1854,  when  it  became 
necessary  to  organize  the  Territories  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska,  I  brought 
forward  a  bill  for  the  purpose  on  the  same  principle.  In  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  Bill  you  find  it  declared  to  be  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  the 
act  not  to  legislate  slavery  into  any  State  or  Territory,  nor  to  exclude  it 
therefrom  ;  but  to  leave  the  people  thereof  perfectly  free  to  form  and 
regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way.  ("  That's  so,"  and 
cheers.)  I  stand  on  that  same  platfonn  in  1858  that  I  did  in  1850,  in 
1854  and  1856. 

The  Washington  "  Union,"  pretending  to  be  the  organ  of  the  administra 
tion,  in  the  number  of  the  5th  of  this  month,  devotes  three  columns  and  a 
half  to  establish  these  propositions:  First,  that  Douglas,  in  his  Freepoit 
speech,  held  the  same  doctrine  that  he  did  in  his  Nebraska  Bill  in  1854 ; 
second,  that  in  1854  Douglas  justified  the  Nebraska  Bill,  upon  the  ground 
that  it  was  based  upon  the  same  principle  as  Clay's  Compromise  measures 
of  1850.  The  "  Union"  thus  proved  that  Douglas  was  the  same  in  1858 
that  he  was  in  1856,  in  1854  and  in  1850,  consequently  argued  that  he  was 
never  a  Democrat.  (Great  laughter.)  Is  it  not  funny  that  I  was  never  a 
Democrat?  (Renewed  laughter.)  There  is  no  pretence  that  I  have  changed 
a  hair's  breadth.  The  "Union"  proves,  by  my  speeches,  that  I  explained 
the  Compromise  measures  of  1850  just  as  I  do  now,  and  that  I  explained 
the  Kansas  and  Nebraska  Bill  in  1854  just  as  I  did  in  my  Freeport  speech, 
and  yet  says  that  I  am  not  a  Democrat,  and  cannot  be  trusted,  because  I 
have  not  changed  during  the  whole  of  that  time.  It  has  occurred  to  me 
that  in  1854  the  author  of  the  Kansas  and  Nebraska  Bill  was  considered  a 
pretty  good  Democrat.  (Cheers.)  It  has  occurred  to  me  that  in  1856, 
when  I  was  exerting  every  nerve  and  every  energy  for  James  Buchanan, 
standing  on  the  same  platform  then  that  I  do  now,  that  I  was  a  pretty 
good  Democrat.  (Renewed  applause.)  They  uow  tell  me  that  I  am  not  a 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  1G5 

Democrat,  because  I  assert  that  the  people  of  a  Territory,  as  well  as  those 
of  a  State,  have  the  right  to  decide  for  themselves  whether  slavery  can  or 
cannot  exist  in  such  Territory.  Let  me  read  what  James  Buchanan  said  on 
that  point  when  he  accepted  the  Democratic  nomination  for  the  Presidency 
in  1856.  In  his  letter  of  acceptance,  he  used  the  following  language : 

"  The  recent  legislation  of  Congress  respecting  domestic  slavery,  derived,  as  it  has 
been,  from  the  original  and  pure  fountain  of  legitimate  political  power,  the  will  of  the 
majority,  promise  ere  long  to  allay  the  dangerous  excitement.  This  legislation  '-a 
founded  upon  principles  as  ancient  as  free  government  itself,  and  in  accordance  with 
them,  has  simply  declared  that  the  people  of  a  Territory,  like  those  of  a  State,  shall  do- 
cide  for  themselves  whether  slavery  shall  or  shall  not  exist  within  their  limits." 

Dr.  Hope  will  there  find  my  answer  to  the  question  he  propounded  to 
me  before  I  commenced  speaking.  (Vociferous  shouts  of  applause.)  Of 
course  no  man  will  consider  it  an  answer  who  is  outside  of  the  Democratic 
organization,  bolts  Democratic  nominations,  and  indirectly  aids  to  put 
Abolitionists  into  power  over  Democrats.  But  whether  Dr.  Hope  con 
siders  it  an  answer  or  not,  every  fair-minded  man  will  see  that  James 
Buchanan  has  answered  the  question,  and  has  asserted  that  the  people  of 
a  Territory,  like  those  of  a  State,  shall  decide  for  themselves  whether  sla 
very  shall  or  shall  not  exist  within  their  limits.  I  answer  specifically,  if 
you  want  a  further  answer,  and  say,  that  while  under  the  decision  of  the 
Supreme  Court,  as  recorded  in  the  opinion  of  Chief  Justice  Taney,  slaven 
are  property  like  all  other  property,  and  can  be  carried  into  a  Territory  of 
the  United  States  the  same  as  any  other  description  of  property  ;  yet,  when 
you  get  them  there,  they  are  subject  to  the  local  law  of  the  Territory  just 
like  all  other  property.  You  will  find  in  a  recent  speech,  delivered  by  that 
able  and  eloquent  statesman,  lion.  Jefferson  Davis,  at  Portland,  Maine,  that 
he  took  the  same  view  of  this  subject  that  I  did  in  my  Frceport  speech. 
He  there  said : 

"  If  the  inhabitants  of  any  Territory  should  refuse  to  enact  such  laws  and  police  regu 
lations  as  would  give  security  to  their  property  or  to  his,  it  would  be  rendered  more  or 
less  valueless,  in  proportion  to  the  difficulties  of  holding  it  without  such  protection.  In 
the  case  of  property  in  the  labor  of  man,  or  what  is  usually  called  slave  property,  the 
insecurity  would  be  so  great  that  the  owner  could  not  ordinarily  retain  it.  Therefore, 
though  the  right  would  remain,  the  remedy  being  withheld,  it  would  follow  that  tiie 
owner  would  be  practically  debarred,  by  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  from  taking 
slave  property  into  a  Territory  where  the  sense  of  the  inhabitants  was  opposed  to  its 
introduction.  So  much  for  the  oft-rep-ea-ied  fallacy  of  forcing  slavery  upon  any  com 
munity." 

You  will  also  find  that  the  distinguished  speaker  of  the  present  Ilou^e 
of  Representatives,  Hon.  James  L.  Orr,  construed  the  Kansas  and  Ne- 


1G6  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

braska  Bill  in  this  same  way  in  1856,  and  also  that  that  great  intellect  of 
the  South,  Alex.  H.  Stevens,  put  the  same  construction  upon  it  in  Con- 
rreae  that  I  did  in  my  Freeport  speech.  The  whole  South  are  rallying  to 
the  support  of  the  doctrine  that,  if  the  people  of  a  Territory  want  slavery, 
they  have  a  right  to  have  it  ;  and  if  they  do  not  want  it,  that  no  power  on 
earth  can  force  it  upon  them.  I  hold  that  there  is  no  principle  on  earth 
more  sacred  to  all  the  friends  of  freedom  than  that  which  says  that  no  in 
stitution,  no  law,  no  constitution,  should  ke  forced  on  an  unwilling  people 
contrary  to  their  wishes ;  and  I  assert  that  the  Kansas  and  Nebraska  Bill 
contains  that  principle.  It  is  the  great  principle  contained  in  that  bill.  It 
is  the  principle  on  which  James  Buchanan  was  made  President.  Without 
that  principle  he  never  would  have  been  made  President  of  the  Uuited 
States.  I  will  never  violate  or  abandon  that  doctrine  if  I  have  to  stand 
alone.  (Hurrah  for  Douglas.)  I  have  resisted  the  blandishments  and 
threats  of  power  on  the  one  side,  and  seduction  on  the  other,  and  have 
stood  immovably  for  that  principle,  fighting  for  it  when  assailed  by 
northern  mobs,  or  threatened  by  southern  hostility.  ("  That's  the  truth,'» 
and  cheers.)  I  have  defended  it  against  the  North  and  the  South,  and  I 
will  defend  it  against  whoever  assails  it,  and  I  will  follow  it  wherever  its 
logical  conclusions  lead  me.  ("  So  will  we  all,"  "  hurrah  for  Douglas.")  I 
say  to  you  that  there  is  but  one  hope,  one  safety  for  this  country,  and  that 
is  to  stand  immovably  by  that  principle  which  declares  the  right  of  each 
State  and  each  Territory  to  decide  these  questions  for  themselves.  (Hear 
him,  hear  him.)  This  government  was  founded  on  that  principle,  and 
must  be  administered  in  the  same  sense  in  which  it  was  founded. 

The  Democracy  of  Illinois  determined  at  the  opening  of 
their  campaign,  in  view  of  their  relations  toward  the  adminis 
tration,  to  invite  no  speakers  from  abroad  to  participate  in 
the  labor  of  their  canvass.  In  the  event  of  any  gentlemen 
volunteering  their  services,  they  would  be  most  gratefully 
accepted.  A  few  exceptions,  however,  were  made  to  this 
rule,  at  the  suggestion  of  friends  in  other  States.  Private 
Otters  had  been  received  by  numerous  gentlemen  in  the 
State,  to  the  effect  that  Vice-President  Breckinridge  warmly 
sympathized  with  the  Illinois  Democracy  in  their  fierce  strug 
gle  with  their  confederated  enemy,  and  that  his  feelings  were 
painfully  exercised  by  the  imminent  dangers  that  environed 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  167 

the  prospects  of  Mr.  Douglas'  reelection  to  the  Senate.  In 
deed,  it  was  suggested  that  the  Yice-President  had  expressed 
a  desire  to  lend  the  weight  of  his  great  talents  and  exertions 
in  the  good  cause ;  and,  if  invited,  would  cheerfully  engage 
in  the  canvass,  as  he  had  done  before  when  himself  a  candi 
date  in  the  contest  of  1856.  Accordingly,  invitations  were 
sent  to  Mr.  Breckinridge,  and  Governor  Wise  of  Virginia, 
who,  it  was  understood,  warmly  sympathized  with  Judge 
Douglas  in  his  struggle,  as  he  had  done  through  his  whole 
anti-Lecompton  course  in  Congress ;  to  which  invitations  these 
gentlemen  sent  characteristic  replies,  which  we  think  of  suf 
ficient  importance  to  here  insert. 

LETTER    OF   ME.    B^ECKINBIDGE. 

VERSAILLES,  Ky.,  Oct.  4, 1858. 

DEAR  SIR  :  I  received  this  morning  your  letters  of  the  28th  and  29th 
ult.,  written  as  chairman  of  the  Democratic  State  Committee  of  Illinois, 
also  one  of  Mr.  V.  Hickox,  who  informs  me  that  he  is  a  member  of  the 
same  committee.  My  absence  from  home  will  account  for  the  delay  of 
this  answer. 

In  these  letters  it  is  said  that  I  am  reported  to  have  expressed  a  desire 
that  Mr.  Douglas  shall  defeat  Mr.  Lincoln  in  their  contest  for  a  seat  in  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States,  and  a  willingness  to  visit  Illinois  and  make 
public  speeches  in  aid  of  such  result ;  and  if  these  reports  are  true,  I  am 
invited  to  deliver  addresses  at  certain  points  in  the  State. 

The  rumor  of  my  readiness  to  visit  Illinois  and  address  the  people  in  the 
present  canvass  is  without  foundation.  I  do  not  propose  to  leave  Kentucky 
for  the  purpose  of  mingling  in  the  political  discussions  in  other  States. 
The  two  or  three  speeches  which  I  delivered  recently  in  this  State  rested 
on  peculiar  grounds,  which  I  need  not  now  discuss. 

The  rumor  to  which  you  refer  is  true.  I  have  often,  in  conversation, 
expressed  the  wish  that  Mr.  Douglas  may  succeed  over  his  TJ^ publican  com 
petitor.  But  it  is  due  to  candor  to  say,  that  this  prefere-nce.  is  not  founded 
on  his  course  at  the  late  session  of  Congress,  and  would  not  exist  if  I  sup 
posed  it  would  be  construed  as  an  indorsement  of  the  attitude  which  he 
then  chose  to  assume  toward  his  party,  or  of  all  the  positions  he  has 
taken  in  the  present  canvass.  It  is  not  necessary  to  enlarge  on  these  thicgs. 


168  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

I  will  only  add,  that  my  preference  rests  mainly  on  these  considerations  : 
that  the  Kansas  question  is  practically  ended — that  Mr.  Douglas,  in  recent 
speeches,  has  explicitly  declared  his  adherence  to  the  regular  Democratic 
party  organization — that  he  seems  to  be  the  candidate  of  the  Illinois  De 
mocracy,  and  the  most  formidable  opponent  in  that  State  of  the  Kepublican 
party,  and  that  on  more  than  one  occasion  during  his  public  life  he  has 
defended  the  union  of  the  States  and  the  rights  of  the  States  with  fidelity, 
courage,  and  great  ability. 

I  have  not  desired  to  say  anything  upon  this  or  any  other  subject  about 
which  a  difference  may  be  supposed  to  exist  in  our  political  family,  but  I 
did  not  feel  at  liberty  to  decline  an  answer  to  the  courteous  letter  of  your 
committee. 

With  cordial  wishes  for  the  harmony  of  the  Illinois  Democracy,  and  the 
hope  that  your  great  and  growing  State,  which  has  never  yet  given  a  sec 
tional  vote,  may  continue  true  to  our  constitutional  Union, 
I  am,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

JOHN  C.  BRECKINRIDQK. 

HON.  JOHN  MOORE,  Chairman  of  the  Committee. 


LETTER  OF  GOVERNOR  WISE. 

RICHMOND,  VA.,  1858. 

To  HON.  JOHN  MOORE,  Chairman  of  the  Democratic 
State  Committee  of  Illinois: 

DEAR  SIR  :  I  cannot  express  to  you  the  emotions  of  my  bosom,  excited 
by  your  appeal  to  me  for  aid  in  the  warm  contest  which  your  noble  De 
mocracy  is  waging  with  abolitionism.  Every  impulse  prompts  me  to  rush 
to  Your  side.  Your  position  is  a  grand  one,  and  in  some  respects  un 
exampled.  In  the  face  of  doubt  and  distrust  attempted  to  be  thrown  upon 
your  Democracy,  and  its  gallant  leader,  by  the  pretext  of  pretenders  that 
you  were  giving  aid  and  comfort  to  the  arch  enemy  of  our  country,  peace 
and  safety,  and  our  party  integrity,  I  see  you  standing  alone — isolated  by 
a  tyrannical  proscription,  which  would,  alike  foolishly  and  wickedly,  lop 
off  one  of  the  most  vigorous  limbs  of  national  Democracy,  the  limb  of 
glorious  Illinois  !  I  see  you,  in  spite  of  this  imputation,  firmly  fronting 
the  foe,  and  battling  to  maintain  conservative  nationality — against  em 
bittered  and  implacable  sectionalism — constitutional  rights,  operating 
proprid  vigore,  and  every  way  against  all  unequal  and  unjust  federal  or 
territorial  legislation  ; 

The  right  of  the  people  to  govern  themselves  against  all  force  or  fraud  ; 

The  right  of  the  sovereign  peoplo  to  look  at  the  u  returns,"  and  behind 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS,  169 

the  u  returns,"  of  all  their  representative  bodies,  agents,  trustees,  or 
servants ; 

The  responsibility  of  all  governors,  representatives,  trustees,  agents,  and 
servants,  to  their  principals,  the  people,  who  are  "the  governed,"  and  the 
source  of  all  political  power  ; 

Utter  opposition  to  the  detestable  doctrine  of  the  absolutism  of  con 
tentions  to  prescribe  and  proclaim  fundamental  forms  of  government  at 
their  will,  without  submission  to  the  sovereign  people — a  doctrine  fit  only 
for  slaves,  and  claimed  only  by  legitimists  and  despots  of  the  old  world ; 

Powers  of  any  sort  not  expressly  delegated  to  any  man,  or  body  of  men, 
arc  expressly  "  reserved  to  the  people  ;" 

No  absolute  or  dictatorial  authority  in  representative  bodies.  The  repre 
sentative  principle  as  claiming  submission  and  obedience  to  the  Avill  of  the 
constituents  ; 

The  sovereignty  of  the  organized  people  supreme  above  all  mere  repre 
sentative  bodies,  conventions,  or  legislatures,  to  decide,  vote  upon,  and 
determine  what  shall  be  their  supreme  law  ; 

Justice  and  equality  between  States  and  their  citizens,  and  between 
voters  to  elect  their  agents  and  representatives,  and  to  ratify  or  reject  any 
proposed  system  of  government; 

Submission  to  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the  federal  Union,  and  strict 
observance  of  all  the  rights  of  the  States  and  their  citizens,  but  resistance 
to  the  dictation  or  bribes  of  Congress,  or  any  other  power,  to  yield  the 
inalienable  right  of  self-government ; 

Protection  in  the  Territories,  and  everywhere,  to  all  rights  of  persons 
and  of  property,  in  accordance  with  the  rights  of  the  States,  and  with  the 
constitution  and  laws  of  the  Union; 

Equity  and  uniformity  in  the  mode  of  admitting  new  States  into  the 
Union,  making  the  same  rules  and  ratios  to  apply  to  all  alike ; 

The  rejection  of  all  compromises,  conditions  or  terms  which  would  dis 
criminate  between  forms  of  republican  constitutions,  admitting  one,  with 
one  number  of  population,  and  requiring  three  times  that  number  for 
another  form  equally  republican  ; 

The  great  law  of  settlement  of  the  public  domain  of  the  United  States, 
free,  equal,  and  just,  never  to  be  "temporized"  or  "localized"  by  tem 
porary  or  partial  expedients,  but  to  be  adjusted  by  permanent,  uniform 
and  universal  rules  of  right  and  justice. 

Maintaining  these  and  the  like  principles,  I  deem  it  to  be  the  aim  of  the 
struggle  of  the  devoted  Democracy  in  this  signal  contest.  And  so  under 
standing  them,  I  glory  in  their  declaration  and  defence.  I  would  sacrifice 
much  and  go  far  to  uphold  your  arms  in  this  battle.  I  would  most  gladly 

8 


170      THE   LIFE  AND  SPEECHES  OF 

visit  your  people,  address  them,  and  invoke  them  to  stand  fast  by  the 
standard  of  their  faith  and  freedom,  and  never  to  let  go  the  truths  for 
which  they  contend,  for  they  are  vital  and  cardinal,  and  essential,  and  can 
never  be  yielded  without  yielding  liberty  itself. 

But,  sir,  I  am  like  a  tied  man,  bound  to  my  duties  here  ;  and,  if  my 
office  would  allow  me  to  leave  it,  I  could  not  depart  from  the  bedside  of 
illness  in  my  family,  which  would  probably  recall  me  before  T  could  reach 
Illinois;  and  my  own  state  of  health  admonishes  me  that  I  ought  not  to 
undertake  a  campaign  as  arduous  as  that  you  propose.  I  know  what  the 
labors  of  the  stump  are,  and  am  not  yet  done  suffering  bodily  from  my 
efforts  for  Democracy  iu  1855.  For  these  reasons,  I  cannot  obey  your 
call;  but,  permit  me  to  add  :  Fight  on!  fight  on!  fight  on  !— never  yield 
but  in  death  or  victory!  And,  oh!  that  I  was  unbound  and  could  do 
more  than  look  on,  throbbing  with  every  pulse  of  your  glorious  struggle — 
with  its  every  blow  and  breath — cheered  with  its  hopes,  and  chafed  by  its 
doubts — You  have  my  prayers,  and  I  am, 

Yours  truly, 

HENRY  A.  WISE. 

The  Democracy  of  Illinois  were  not  satisfied  with  the 
spirit  and  tone  of  Mr.  Breckinridge's  letter,  nor  did  they 
acknowledge  the  justice  of  the  Vice-President's  insinuation, 
that  their  position  was  no  better  than  Black  Republicanism, 
contained  in  the  following  paragraph  : 

I  have  often,  in  conversation,  expressed  the  wish  that  Mr.  Douglas  may 
succeed  over  his  competitor  ;  but  it  is  due  to  candor  to  say,  that  this  pre 
ference  is  not  founded  on  his  course  at  the  last  session  of  Congress,  and 
would  not  exist  if  I  supposed  it  would  be  construed  as  an  indorsement  of 
the  attitude  which  he  then  chose  to  assume  toward  his  party,  or  of  all  the 
positions  he  has  taken  in  the  present  canvass. 

The  speeches  of  Mr.  Breckinridge,  in  favor  of  the  Ne 
braska  Bill,  while  that  measure  was  pending  in  Congress, 
and  in  1856,  when  a  candidate  for  the  Vice-Presidency,  in 
each  of  which  he  advocated  the  doctrine  of  popular  sove 
reignty,  in  terms  quite  as  explicit  as  those  employed  by  Mr. 
Douglas  in  his  Freeport  speech,  were  too  fresh  in  the  minds 
of  Illinoisans  to  permit  this  implied  rebuke  from  a  gen- 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  171 

tleman  whom  they  had  so  recently  aided  in  electing  to  the 
second  office  in  the  gift  of  the  people  to  pass  without  hard 
thoughts.  Nor  did  the  Illinois  Democrats  exactly  relish  the 
ambiguous  and  equivocal  language  in  which  the  Vice-President 
gave  his  reasons  for  preferring  Mr.  Douglas  to  Mr.  Lincoln. 

The  tone  and  temper  of  the  noble  letter  of  Governor 
Wise,  replete  with  fervid  interest  in  the  struggle,  is  in  strik 
ing  contrast  with  that  of  Mr.  Breckinridge,  and  the  two  letters 
appearing  about  the  same  time,  produced  a  profound  impres 
sion  on  the  minds  and  feelings  of  the  Illinois  Democracy. 


ME.  DIXON'S   LETTER. 

Pending  the  campaign,  the  Hon.  Archibald  Dixon,  late 
United  States  senator  from  Kentucky,  addressed  a  letter  to 
the  lion.  Henry  S.  Foote,  under  date  of  September  30, 
1858,  in  which  the  public  career  of  Mr.  Douglas  was  referred 
to,  his  position  on  the  Lecompton  constitution  sustained, 
and  his  course  on  the  Nebraska  Bill  vindicated.  Mr.  Dixon 
is  an  Old  Line  Whig,  and  will  be  remembered  as  having  first 
moved  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  restriction  in  the  Senate, 
an  amendment  which  was  modified  and  accepted  by  Mr. 
Douglas,  and  subsequently  incorporated  into  the  Nebraska- 
Kansas  Bill. 

The  following  extract  will  show  in  what  estimation  Mr. 
Douglas  is  held  by  one  of  the  retired  statesmen  of  the  coun 
try,  no  longer  influenced  by  partisan  feeling  and  personal 
rivalry : 

Of  Judge  Douglas,  personally,  I  have  a  few  words  to  utter  which  I  could 
not  withhold,  without  greatly  wronging  my  own  conscience.  When  I  en 
tered  the  United  States  Senate  a  few  years  since,  I  found  him  a  decided 
favorite  with  the  political  party  then  dominant  both  in  the  Senate  and  the 
country.  My  mind  had  been  gj-eatly  prejudiced  against  him,  and  I  felt  no 
disposition  whatever  to  sympathize,  or  to  cooperate  with  him.  It  soon 


172       THE  LIFE  AND   SPEECHES   OF 

became  apparent  to  me,  as  to  others,  that  he  was,  upon  the  whole,  fat  the 
ablest  Democratic  member  of  the  body.  In  the  progress  of  time  my 
respect  for  him,  both  as  a  gentleman  and  a  statesman,  greatly  increased. 
T  found  him  sociable,  affable,  and  in  the  highest  degree  entertaining  and 
instructive  in  social  intercourse.  His  power,  as  a  debater,  seemed  to  me 
unequalled  in  the  Senate.  He  was  industrious-,  energetic,  bold,  and  skill 
ful  in  the  management  of  the  concerns  of  his  party.  He  was  the  acknow 
ledged  leader  of  the  Democratic  party  in  the  Senate,  and,  to  confess  the 
truth,  seemed  to  me  to  bear  the  honors  which  encircled  him  with  suffi 
cient  meekness.  Such  was  the  palmy  state  of  his  reputation  ^«d 
popularity  on  the  day  that  he  reported  to  the  Senate  his  celebrated  Kan 
sas  and  Nebraska  Bill. 

On  examining  that  bill,  it  struck  me  that  it  was  deficient  in  one  material 
respect ;  it  did  not  in  terms  repeal  the  restrictive  provision  in  regard  to 
slavery  embodied  in  the  Missouri  Compromise.  This,  to  me,  was  a  defi 
ciency  that  I  thought  it  imperiously  necessary  to  supply.  I  accordingly 
offered  an  amendment  to  that  effect.  My  amendment  seemed  to  take  the 
Senate  by  surprise,  and  no  one  appeared  more  startled  than  Judge  Doug 
las  himself.  lie  immediately  came  to  my  seat  and  courteously  remon 
strated  against  my  amendment,  suggesting  that  the  bill  which  he  had 
introduced  was  almost  in  the  words  of  the  Territorial  acts  for  the  organi 
zation  of  Utah  and  New  Mexico  ;  that  they  being  a  part  of  the  Compro 
mise  measures  of  1850,  he  had  hoped  that  I,  a  known  and  zealous  friend 
of  the  wise  and  patriotic  adjustment  which  had  then  taken  place,  would 
not  be  inclined  to  do  anything  to  call  that  adjustment  in  question  or 
weaken  it  before  the  country. 

I  replied  that  it  was  precisely  because  I  had  been,  and  was,  a  firm  and 
zealous  friend  of  the  Compromise  of  1850,  that  I  felt  bound  to  persist  in  the 
movement  which  I  had  originated  ;  that  I  was  well  satisfied  that  the  Mis 
souri  restriction,  if  not  expressly  repealed,  would  continue  to  operate  in 
the  Territory  to  which  it  had  been  applied,  thus  negativing  the  great  and 
salutary  principle  of  nen-intervention,  which  constituted  the  most  promi 
nent  and  essential  feature  of  the  plan  of  settlement  of  1850.  We  talked 
for  some  time  amicably,  and  separated.  Some  days  afterward  Judge 
Douglas  came  to  my  lodgings,  while  I  was  confined  by  physical  indisposi 
tion,  and  urged  me  to  get  up  and  take  a  ride  with  him  in  his  carriage.  I 
accepted  his  invitation  and  rode  out  with  him.  During  our  short  excur 
sion  we  talked  on  the  subject  of  my  proposed  amendment,  and  Judge 
Douglas,  to  my  high  gratification,  proposed  to  me  that  I  should  allow  him 
to  take  charge  of  the  amendment  and  ingraft  it  on  his  Territorial  Bill.  I 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  If  3 

acceded  to  the  proposition  at  once,  whereupon  a  most  interesting  inter 
change  occurred  between  us. 

On  this  occasion,  Judge  Douglas  spoke  to  me,  in  substance,  thus  :  "I 
have  become  perfectly  satisfied  that  it  is  my  duty,  as  a  fair-minded  national 
statesman,  to  cooperate  with  you  as  proposed  in  securing  the  repeal  of  the 
Missouri  Compromise  restriction.  It  is  due  to  the  South  ;  it  is  due  to  the 
Constitution,  heretofore  palpably  infracted ;  it  is  due  to  that  character  for 
consistency,  which  I  have  heretofore  labored  to  maintain.  The  repeal,  if 
we  can  effect  it,  will  produce  much  stir  and  commotion  in  the  free  States 
of  the  Union  for  a  season.  I  shall  be  assailed  by  demagogues  and  fana 
tics  there,  without  stint  or  moderation.  Every  opprobrious  epithet  will 
be  applied  to  me.  I  shall  be  probably  hung  in  effigy  in  many  places.  It 
is  more  than  probable  that  I  may  become  permanently  odious  among  those 
whose  friendship  and  esteem  I  have  heretofore  possessed.  This  proceed 
ing  may  end  my  political  career.  But,  acting  under  the  sense  of  the  duty 
which  animates  me,  I  am  prepared  to  make  the  sacrifice.  I  will  do  it." 

He  spoke  in  the  most  earnest  and  touching  manner,  and  I  confess  that 
I  was  deeply  affected.  I  said  to  him  in  reply :  "  Sir,  I  once  recognized 
you  as  a  demagogue,  a  mere  party  manager,  selfish  and  intriguing.  I  now 
find  you  a  warm-hearted  and  sterling  patriot.  Go  torward  in  the  pathway 
of  duty  as  you  propose,  and  though  all  the  world  desert  you,  /  never 
will* 

The  subsequent  course  of  this  extraordinary  personage  is  now  before 
the  country.  His  great  speeches  on  this  subject,  in  the  Senate  and  else 
where,  have  since  been  made.  As  a  true  national  statesman — as  an 
inflexible  and  untiring  advocate  and  defender  of  the  Constitution  of  his 
country — as  an  enlightened,  fair-minded,  and  high-souled  patriot,  he  has 
fearlessly  battled  for  principle  ;  he  has  with  singular  consistency  pursued 
the  course  which  he  promised  to  pursue  when  we  talked  together  in  Wash 
ington,  neither  turning  to  the  right  nor  to  the  left.  Though  sometimes 
reviled  and  ridiculed  by  those  most  benefited  by  his  labors,  he  has  never 
been  heard  to  complain.  Persecuted  by  the  leading  men  of  the  party  ho 
had  so  long  served  and  sustained,  he  has  demeaned  himself,  on  all  occ.i- 
sions,  with  moderation  and  dignity ;  though  he  has  been  ever  earnest  in 
the  performance  of  duty,  energetic  in  combating  and  overcoming  the  ob 
stacles  which  have  so  strangely  beset  his  pathway,  and  always  ready  to 
meet  and  to  overthrow  such  adversaries  as  have  ventured  to  encounter 
him.  He  has  been  faithful  to  his  pledge  ;  he  has  been  true  to  the  South 
and  to  the  Union,  and  I  intend  to  be  faithful  to  my  own  pledge.  I  am 
sincerely  grateful  for  his  public  services.  I  feel  the  highest  admiration  foe 


THE     LIFE     AND      SPEECH  E  S     OF 

all  his  noble  qualities  and  high  achievements,  and  I  regard  his  reputation 
as  part  of  the  moral  treasures  of  the  nation  itself. 

And  now,  in  conclusion,  permit  me  to  say  that  the  southern  people 
cannot  enter  into  unholy  alliance  for  the  destruction  of  Judge  Douglas, 
if  they  are  true  to  themselves,  for  he  has  made  more  sacrifices  to  sustain 
southern  institutions  than  any  man  now  living.  Southern  men  may,  and 
doubtless  have,  met  the  enemies  of  the  South  in  the  councils  of  the  nation, 
and  sustained,  by  their  votes  and  their  speeches,  her  inalienable  rights 
under  the  Constitution  of  our  common  country  ;  northern  men  may  have 
voted  that  those  rights  should  not  be  wrested  from  us  ;  but  it  has  remained 
for  Judge  Douglas  alone,  northern  man  as  he  is,  to  throw  himself  "  into 
the  deadly  imminent  breach,"  and  like  the  steadfast  and  everlasting  rock 
of  the  ocean,  to  withstand  the  fierce  tide  of  fanaticism,  and  drive  back 
those  angry  billows  which  threatened  to  ingulf  his  country's  happiness. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  very  respectfully  and  cordially,  your  friend  and 
fellow-citizen,  ARCH.  DIXON. 

Our  limits  will  not  allow  us  to  refer  further  to  the  incidents 
of  the  Illinois  campaign.  The  canvass  on  both  sides  was 
conducted  with  unparalleled  spirit  and  energy  until  the  day 
of  the  election.  The  result  is  well  known.  The  Republicans 
were  completely  routed,  and  a  Democratic  legislature  chosen. 
Mr.  Douglas'  majority  on  joint  ballot  was  eight,  three  in  the 
Senate  and  five  in  the  House.  Most  of  the  federal  office 
holders  voted  the  Republican  ticket,  and  the  reason  assigned 
for  this  act  of  treachery  to  the  party  was,  that  the  entire 
Catholic  vote  had  remained  faithful  to  the  party  with  which 
they  had  usually  acted. 

The  "  Chicago  Herald,"  the  organ  of  the  Administration, 
on  the  day  after  the  election,  explained  the  reasons  why  the 
Administration  ticket  in  that  city  received  only  215  votes, 
when  there  were  600  persons  in  Government  employ,  as  fol 
lows  : 

The  fact  having  become  known  on  the  eve  of  the  election,  that  the 
entire  Catholic  vote  of  this  city,  notwithstanding  professions  to  the  con 
trary,  would  be  thrown  for  Douglas,  the  National  Democrats  became  exas 
perated  at  such  wholesale  treachery,  and  despite  all  the  eft'orts  tha.t  could 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  175 

be  made  to  prevent  it,  they  voted  en  masse  for  the  Republican  candidates, 
as  the  most  effectual  way  of  defeating  Douglas. 

When  full  returns  of  the  result  had  been  received  from 
all  parts  of  the  State,  the  Democracy  celebrated  their  tri 
umph  with  great  eclat  and  rejoicing.  Thousands  of  citizens 
from  all  quarters  of  the  West  flocked  to  Chicago  to  take 
part  in  the  celebration. 

When  the  immense  procession  reached  the  front  of  the 
Tremont  House,  they  gave  nine  hearty  cheers  for  Senator 
Douglas,  and  loudly  called  for  a  speech.  Mr.  Douglas  made 
his  appearance  on  the  same  balcony  from  which  he  had 
opened  the  canvas  four  months  previous,  and  addressed  the 
vast  assemblage  as  follows  : 

Mr  FRIENDS  AND  FELLOW-CITIZENS  :  I  return  you  my  heartfelt  thanks 
for  this  magnificent  demonstration.  The  Democracy  of  Illinois  havo 
achieved  a  noble  victory  over  the  combined  forces  of  Abolitionism  and  its 
allies.  (Cheers.)  You  have  a  right  to  be  proud  of  this  glorious  triumph. 
It  is  the  triumph  of  the  Constitution  over  faction  ;  it  is  the  triumph  of  the 
glorious  principles  of  the  Union  over  fanaticism  and  sectionalism  (ap 
plause)  ;  it  is  the  triumph  of  the  principle  of  self-government  over  Con 
gressional  interference  and  Executive  dictation.  (Immense  applause.) 

Four  months  ago,  I  opened  the  canvass  in  a  speech  from  this  balcony 
to  countless  thousands  of  my  fellow-citizens  ;  I  now  appear  before  you  to 
receive  the  congratulations  of  as  many  more  thousands  rejoicing  over  our 
great  success.  While  it  is  right  and  proper  that  you  should  rejoice  at  tho 
success  of  sound  constitutional  principles  which  insure  peace  and  harmony 
to  the  republic,  it  is  our  duty  to  enjoy  our  victory  with  moderation. 
With  the  result  of  this  election  let  all  the  asperities,  the  excitements  and 
angry  passions  which  have  been  aroused  during  the  contest  be  buried  for 
ever.  It  is  neither  just  nor  magnanimous  to  rejoice  over  a  vanquished 
foe.  (Cheers.)  Let  us  teach  our  political  opponents  that  although  we 
have  triumphed,  the  victory  is  for  their  good  as  well  as  ours.  (Great  ap 
plause.)  When  we  put  sound,  just  and  constitutional  principles  into  prac 
tical  operation  in  this  government,  the  Republicans  enjoy  the  blessings 
thus  conferred  as  well  as  the  Democrats.  (Good,  good,  and  cheers.)  It 
ia  right,  therefore,  that  all  should  rejoice  in  our  triumph,  but  it  is  our 


176  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

duty  to  be  kind,  generous  and  magnanimous  toward  those  whom  -we  have 
differed  with  in  opinion.  (Cheers.)  Let  us  remember,  that  while  we  are 
divided  into  political  parties  and  separated  from  each  other  by  antago 
nistic  principles,  yet  as  citizens  of  a  common  republic  we  all  revere  the 
glories  of  our  past  history,  and  trust  that  our  posterity  will  share  a  com 
mon  destiny  in  all  time  to  come.  (Applause.)  This  Union,  through  the 
Constitution,  has  conferred  upon  our  country  the  greatest  legacy  that 
Divine  Providence  has  ever  vouchsafed  to  a  free  people.  (Hear,  hear.) 
Let  that  Constitution  be  administered  as  our  fathers  made  it ;  let  that 
bond  of  union  which  binds  these  States  together  continue  forever,  each 
State  retaining  its  sovereign  rights,  disposing  of  its  own  internal  affairs, 
and  regulating  its  own  domestic  institutions  to  suit  itself.  (Cheers.)  Let 
that  great  principle  of  popular  sovereignty,  which  underlies  our  republican 
institutions,  be  carried,  out  in  good  faith  in  the  States  and  Territories 
alike.  (Cheers.)  Let  Illinois  regulate  her  own  affairs,  model  her  institu 
tions  according  to  her  own  wishes,  and  mind  her  own  business,  permitting 
every  other  State  to  do  the  same  thing  (cheers),  and  there  will  then  be 
concord  and  fraternal  feeling  among  the  different  States  of  the  Union. 
(Renewed  cheering.) 

We  must  discard  forever  that  fatal  heresy  which  teaches  that  this  Union, 
divided  into  free  and  slave  States,  as  our  fathers  made  it,  cannot  endure — 
that  false  philosophy  which  says  that  these  States  must  all  become  free,  or 
all  become  slave — that  they  must  become  all  one  thing,  or  all  the  other, 
should  be  discarded  forever  (applause) ;  and  the  great  principle  of  popular 
sovereignty,  of  State  rights  and  State  sovereignty  should  prevail,  declar 
ing  the  right  of  the  people  of  each  State  and  each  Territory  to  manage 
their  own  affairs  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution. 
(Three  cheers.)  When  that  principle  shall  be  recognized  and  proclaimed 
by  the  whole  American  people,  North  and  South,  there  will  then  be  peace, 
and  harmony,  and  fraternity  among  all  the  States  of  this  confederacy 
(good,  and  applause);  but  so  long  as  that  monstrous  political  heresy  shall 
prevail,  that  the  North  must  combine  against  the  South  to  abolish  slavery 
everywhere,  and  that  the  South  must  combine  against  the  North  to  esta 
blish  it  everywhere — that  there  must  be  an  "  irrepressible  conflict "  be 
tween  the  North  and  the  South  for  the  ascendency,  so  long  there  will  be 
discord,  strife  and  hatred  between  the  different  sections  of  the  Union. 
("  That's  it,"  and  applause.)  That  great  issue  was  directly  and  distinctly 
submitted  to  the  people  of  Illinois  at  the  recent  election,  and  thank  God, 
the  principles  of  the  Constitution  and  the  Union  have  triumphed.  (Im< 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  177 

mense  applause.)  Illinois  now  stands  as  she  has  ever  stood,  faithful  to  the 
Constitution  and  the  Union ;  Illinois  now  stands  as  she  has  ever  stood, 
immovable,  upon  Democratic  principles,  maintaining  the  Democratic  or 
ganization.  (Six  cheers.)  Every  other  free  State  in  this  Union  at  some 
time  has  wheeled  out  of  line,  except  gallant  Illinois.  (Tremendous  ap 
plause.)  From  the  day  that  Illinois  entered  this  confederacy,  up  to  this 
hour,  she  has  cast  her  vote  for  Democratic  candidates  for  the  Presidency 
and  Vice-Presidency  at  every  succeeding  election.  (Renewed  applause.) 
And  yet  you  have  been  told  that  the  only  State  that  has  never  failed  to 
stand  by  the  Democratic  organization,  and  vote  for  the  Democratic  candi 
dates  for  President,  is  now  to  be  read  out  of  that  party  by  the  politicians 
of  those  States  which  have  all  gone  Abolition.  When  this  dark  cloud  of 
fanaticism,  -which  has  spread  over  the  New  England  States,  rolled  over 
New  York,  completely  overwhelmed  Pennsylvania,  Indiana,  Ohio,  and 
reached  in  its  course  the  Wabash  River,  it  was  there  met  by  the  invincible 
Democracy  of  Illinois,  who  turned  back  the  tide  and  kept  the  flag  of  the 
Constitution  and  the  Union  floating  over  their  beloved  State.  (Cheers.) 

The  victory  you  are  now  celebrating  is  one  never  to  be  forgotten,  for  it 
is  the  triumph  of  Union,  constitutional  men  over  fanaticism,  sectionalism, 
and  disunion.  Illinois  now  occupies  the  proud  position  of  having  fought 
the  good  fight;  Illinois  is  now  greeted  all  aver  the  Union — north  and 
south,  east  and  west— as  the  only  northern  State  that  was  not  over 
whelmed  in  the  recent  elections.  (Cheers.)  To  what  cause  do  the  De 
mocracy  of  Illinois  owe  this  triumph  ?  It  is  due  to  fidelity  to  principle. 
(Applause.)  In  Illinois  the  true  principle  of  popular  sovereignty  has  been 
sustained ;  in  Illinois  the  Cincinnati  platform  has  been  strictly  adhered  to  ; 
in  Illinois  the  Democratic  organization  has  been  maintained.  (Six  cheers, 
and  long  continued  enthusiasm.)  In  Illinois  there  have  been  no  new  tests 
interpolated  into  the  Democratic  platform  (applause)  ;  in  Illinois  Demo 
crats  have  never  been  persecuted  because  of  differences  of  opinion,  pro 
vided  they  remained  inside  of  the  Democratic  party  and  abided  the  usages 
of  its  organization.  (Cheers.)  In  Illinois,  a  liberal,  tolerant,  just  and 
generous  policy  has  prevailed,  and  in  Illinois  a  glorious  triumph  has 
rewarded  that  policy.  (Applause.) 

Now,  my  friends,  the  result  in  this  State  contrasted  with  the  disasters  in 
others,  furnishes  a  lesson.  Let  the  bitterness  that  has  been  excited,  let 
the  angry  passions  that  have  been  aroused,  be  buried  with  the  contest  out 
of  which  they  arose.  (Good,  and  cheers.)  Let  us  meet  our  fellow-citizens 
who  differed  with  us  in  politics  the  same  as  if  there  had  been  no  angry 

8* 


ITS  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

feeling  engendered.  It  is  our  duty  now  to  consolidate  the  party,  to  begin 
to  combine  our  forces  for  the  future,  in  order  that  we  may  present  a  full, 
united,  invincible  front  to  Abolitionism  and  all  of  its  allied  forces.  (Cheers.) 
If  wise  and  patriotic  counsels  now  prevail,  the  great  battle  of  Popular 
Sovereignty  has  been  fought  and  the  victory  won  forever.  (Cheers.)  If 
we  expect  to  maintain  our  liberties  as  our  fathers  transmitted  them  to  us, 
we  must  be  vigilant  and  watchful,  preserving  our  organization,  and  ever 
ready  to  present  a  united  and  irresistible  front  to  the  common  enemy 
wherever  he  makes  his  appearance.  (Cheers.) 

My  friends,  I  will  now  renew  to  you  my  grateful  and  profound  ac 
knowledgments  for  the  magnificent  demonstrations  which  you  have  made, 
to-night. 


STEPHEN     A.    DOUGLAS  179 


CHAPTER    XIV. 

Mr.  Douglas  leaves  Chicago  for  New  Orleans — Received  at  St.  Louis  and 
Memphis — Brilliant  Reception  at  New  Orleans — Speech  at  Odd  Fellows 
Hall— Departs  for  New  York — Received  by  Corporate  Authorities— Voted 
Independence  Hall  in  Philadelphia — Speaks  at  Baltimore  —  Receives 
news  of  his  Reelection  as  Senator  on  point  of  starting  for  Washington. 

SOON  after  the  close  of  the  Illinois  campaign,  in  November, 
1858,  Mr.  Douglas,  with  his  family,  left  Chicago  for  the  pur 
pose  of  making  a  brief  visit  to  New  Orleans,  to  attend  to 
some  pressing  private  matters  which  his  public  duties  had 
constrained  him  too  long  to  neglect.  He  gave  no  notice  of 
his  intention  to  make  the  trip,  desiring  to  perform  the  jour 
ney  as  speedily  and  quietly  as  possible.  Remaining  in  St. 
Louis  a  day,  for  a  boat  to  convey  him  down  the  river,  the 
news  of  his  presence  soon  spread  through  the  city,  and  that 
night  he  was  honored  with  a  serenade  by  a  large  concourse 
of  citizens,  who  assembled  around  the  hotel  and  insisted  on 
a  speech.  Mr.  Douglas  acknowledged  the  compliment  in  a 
few  appropriate  remarks,  and  expressed  his  gratification  that 
the  people  of  Missouri,  who  were  so  deeply  interested  in  the 
institution  of  slavery,  so  justly  appreciated  the  nature  and 
importance  of  the  contest  through  which  he  had  recently 
passed  in  Illinois. 

Proceeding  down  the  river  without  giving  any  public 
notice  of  his  destination,  Mr.  Douglas  was  surprised  when, 
nearly  a  hundred  miles  above  Memphis,  he  was  notified  that 


180  THE      LIFE     AND      SPEECHES      OF 

the  Democracy  of  that  city  had  learned  by  telegraph  of  his 
intended  visit  to  New  Orleans,  and  had  appointed  a  commit 
tee  of  one  hundred  persons  and  chartered  a  steamer  to  pro 
ceed  up  the  river  and  meet  him,  for  the  purpose  of  inducing 
him  to  stop  a  day  at  Memphis  and  accept  of  the  hospitalities 
of  that  city.  Not  feeling  at  liberty  to  decline  so  flattering 
an  invitation,  Mr.  Douglas  placed  himself  in  the  hands  of  the 
committee,  and  on  the  following  day  addressed  a  large  meet 
ing  of  the  citizens  of  Memphis  on  the  political  topics  of  the 
day.  In  this  speech  Mr.  Douglas  confined  himself  mainly  to 
a  discussion  of  the  points  presented  in  the  Illinois  campaign, 
prefacing  it  with  the  declaration,  that  no  political  creed  was 
sound  which  could  not  be  proclaimed  equally  as  well  in  one 
State  of  the  Union  as  in  the  other.  On  a  comparison  of  the 
published  report  of  this  speech,  as  it  appeared  in  the  news 
papers  of  the  clay,  we  find  that  he  asserted  the  same  views 
on  the  Territorial  question  in  Memphis  as  he  had  done  in 
Illinois. 

The  cordial  and  enthusiastic  approbation  with  which  his 
audience  received  his  speech,  must  have  satisfied  Mr.  Dou 
glas  that  Democracy  was  the  same  in  Tennessee  as  in 
Illinois. 

At  New  Orleans,  Mr.  Douglas'  reception  was  truly  grand 
and  magnificent.  Approaching  the  Crescent  at  9  o'clock  at 
night,  he  was  received  by  the  city  authorities,  the  military 
and  the  citizens,  amidst  the  firing  of  cannon  and  in  the  glare 
of  a  brilliant  illumination.  He  was  escorted  to  the  St. 
Charles  Hotel,  where  he  was  lodged  as  the  guest  of  the  city, 
and  addressed  by  the  mayor  on  behalf  of  the  municipal  au 
thorities,  and  by  Hon.  Pierre  Soule  on  behalf  of  the  citizens, 
in  eloquent  speeches  of  congratulation  on  his  brilliant  victory 
in  Illinois  over  the  enemies  of  the  Constitution  and  the 
Union,  to  each  of  which  he  made  an  appropriate  response. 

On  the  6th  December,  he  addressed  the  people  of  New 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  181 

Orleans  at  Odd  Fellows  Hall,  on  the  political  topics  of  the 
day,  at  the  request  of  a  large  number  of  citizens,  embracing 
all  shades  of  political  opinions.  "We  deem  this  speech  of 
sufficient  importance  to  the  reader  to  justify  us  in  giving  one 
or  two  extracts : 

MR.  PKESIDENT  AND  CITIZENS  OF  NEW  ORLEANS  :  It  was  with  much  hesita 
tion  and  no  small  degree  of  reluctance  that  I  was  induced  to  give  my  con 
sent  to  address  you  on  this  occasion.  I  have  just  passed  through  a  fierce 
conflict  in  my  own  State,  which  required  me  to  perform  more  speaking 
than  was  either  agreeable  to  my  wishes  or  consistent  with  my  strength. 
When  I  determined  to  visit  New  Orleans,  it  was  only  on  private  business 
of  an  imperative  character ;  and  it  was  my  desire  to  arrive  and  depart  as 
quietly  as  possible,  and  without  in  any  way  connecting  myself  with  politics. 
I  approached  your  city,  as  I  supposed,  unheralded  and  unknown,  and  I 
was  amazed  at  the  magnificent  reception  extended  to  me  on  the  Levee  by 
so  vast  a  concourse  of  people,  embracing  the  municipal  authorities,  the 
citizens  in  their  individual  capacity,  my  own  political  friends,  and  men  of 
all  political  parties.  This  was  a  compliment  which  filled  my  heart  with 
gratitude,  and  did  not  leave  me  at  liberty  to  decline  the  first  request  you 
might  make  of  me  in  return.  I  have,  therefore,  yielded  to  your  solicita 
tions,  to  make  a  few  remarks  on  the  political  topics  which  now  agitate  the 
public  mind  throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of  our  glorious  Republic, 
and  I  have  done  so  the  more  readily  as  I  desire  to  know  whether  the  prin 
ciples  which  are  admitted  to  be  sound  and  orthodox  in  the  free  States  can 
pass  current  in  the  slave  States. 

So  long  as  we  live  under  a  common  Constitution,  binding  on  the  people 
of  all  the  States,  any  political  creed  which  cannot  be  proclaimed  in  Louisi 
ana  as  boldly  as  in  Illinois,  must  be  unsound  and  unsafe.  I  shall  not  at 
tempt  to  enter  upon  any  new  views,  or  propound  any  original  ideas,  with 
the  view  of  testing  the  truth  of  this  proposition,  but  shall  simply  discuss 
these  questions  now  at  issue  in  the  country,  in  the  same  manner  that  I  ain 
in  the  habit  of  doing  before  an  Illinois  audience.  The  tendency  of  events 
during  the  past  fifteen  years  has  been  to  force  the  organization  of  political 
parties  on  a  geographical  basis,  to  array  the  North  against  the  South,  em 
bittering  the  one  against  the  other,  under  the  misapprehension  that  there 
is  some  irreconcilable  antagonism  in  their  interests  which  prevents  har 
mony  between  them.  For  the  last  twenty-five  years  I  have  been  in  public 
life ;  fifteen  years  have  been  spent  in  the  Congress  of  the  United  States, 


182       THE  LIFE  AND  SPEECHES  OF 

and  the  whole  of  my  life  has  been  devoted  to  the  discovery  and  elucidation 
of  some  common  ground  on  which  northern  and  southern  men  might  stand 
on  terms  of  equality  and  justice.  If  you  will  take  pains  to  examine  the 
history  of  this  sectional  strife  which  has  grown  up  in  our  midst,  you  will 
find  that  the  whole  contest  has  arisen  from  an  attempt  on  the  part  of  the 
Federal  Government  to  assume,  or  usurp,  the  exercise  of  powers  not  con 
ferred  by  the  federal  Constitution. 


NON-INTERVENTION   THE    ONLY   POLICY   THAT   CAN   SAVE   THE 

UNION. 

The  Democracy  of  Illinois,  in  the  first  place,  accepts  the  decision  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  in  the  case  of  Dred  Scott,  as  an  author 
itative  interpretation  of  the  Constitution.  In  accordance  with  that  decision, 
we  hold  that  slaves  arc  property,  and  hence  on  an  equality  with  all  other 
kinds  of  property,  and  that  the  owner  of  a  slave  has  the  same  right  to  move 
into  a  Territory  and  carry  his  slave  property  with  him,  as  the  owner  of  any 
other  property  has  to  go  there  and  carry  his  property.  All  citizens  of  the 
United  States,  no  matter  whether  they  come  from  the  North  or  the  South, 
from  a  free  State  or  a  slave  State,  can  enter  a  Territory  with  their  pro 
perty  on  an  equal  footing.  And,  I  apprehend,  when  jou  arrive  there  with 
your  property,  of  whatever  description,  it  is  subject  to  the  local  laws  of 
the  Territory.  How  can  your  slave  property  be  protected  without  local 
law,  any  more  than  any  other  kind  of  property  ?  The  Constitution  gives 
you  the  right  to  go  into  a  Territory  and  carry  your  slaves  with  you,  the 
same  as  any  other  species  of  property ;  but  it  does  not  punish  any  man  for 
stealing  your  slaves  any  more  than  stealing  any  other  kind  of  property. 
Congress  has  never  yet  passed  a  law  providing  a  criminal  code  or  furnish 
ing  protection  to  any  kind  of  property.  It  has  simply  organized  the  Terri 
tory  and  established  a  legislature,  that  legislature  being  vested  with  legis 
lative  power  over  all  rightful  subjects  of  legislation,  subject  only  to  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States.  Hence,  whatever  jurisdiction  the  legis 
lature  possesses  over  other  property,  it  has  over  slave  property — no  more, 
no  less.  Let  me  ask  you,  as  southern  men,  whether  you  can  hold  slaves 
anywhere  unless  protected  by  the  local  law  ?  Would  not  the  inaction  of 
the  local  legislature,  its  refusal  to  provide  a  slave  code,  or  to  punish  offences 
against  that  species  of  property,  exclude  slavery  just  as  effectually  as  a 
constitutional  prohibition  ?  Would  it  not  have  that  effect  in  Louisiana  and 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  183 

in  every  other  State  ?  No  one  will  deny  it.  Then,  let  me  ask  you,  if  the 
people  of  a  Territory  refuse  to  pass  a  slave  code,  how  are  you  going  to 
make  them  do  it?  When  you  give  them  power  to  legislate  on  all  rightful 
subjects  of  legislation,  it  becomes  a  question  for  them  to  decide  and  not 
for  you. 

If  the  local  legislature  imposes  a  tax  on  horses,  or  any  other  kind  of  pro 
perty,  you  may  think  it  a  hardship,  but  how  are  you  going  to  help  it  ? 
Just  so  it  is  with  regard  to  traffic  in  liquors.  If  you  are  dealing  in  liquors 
you  have  the  same  right  to  take  your  liquors  into  the  Territory  that  any 
body  else  has  to  take  any  other  species  of  property.  You  may  pass  through 
and  take  your  liquors  in  transitu,  and  you  will  be  protected  in  your  right 
of  property  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States;  but  if  you  open 
the  packages  they  become  subject  to  the  local  law  ;  and  should  the  Maine 
law  happen  to  prevail  in  the  Territory,  you  had  better  travel  with  your 
liquors.  Hence,  if  the  local  legislature  has  the  same  power  over  slave  pro 
perty  as  over  every  other  species  of  property,  what  right  have  you  to  com 
plain  of  that  equality  ?  But  if  you  do  complain,  where  is  your  remedy  ? 
And  let  me  say  to  you  that  if  you  oppose  this  just  doctrine,  if  you  attempt 
to  exempt  slaves  from  the  same  rules  that  apply  to  every  other  kind  of  pro 
perty,  you  will  abandon  your  strongest  ground  of  defence  against  the  as 
saults  of  the  Black  Republicans  and  Abolitionists.  If  the  people  of  a  Ter 
ritory  are  in  favor  of  slavery  they  will  make  laws  to  protect  it ;  if  opposed 
to  slavery  they  will  not  make  those  laws,  and  you  cannot  compel  them  to 
do  it.  But  I  will  tell  you  when  they  will  have  it,  and  when  slavery  will 
find  protection  in  a  Territory.  It  is  when  the  Territory  lies  in  those  lati 
tudes  and  climates  which  adapt  it  to  the  profitable  production  of  rice  and 
tmgar  and  cotton,  and  where  slave  labor  will  be  remunerative.  Thus,  sla 
very  will  exist  wherever  soil,  climate,  and  productions  demand  it,  and  it 
will  exist  nowhere  else.  Now,  if  climate,  and  soil,  and  self-interest  will  re 
gulate  this  question,  why  should  we  quarrel  about  it  ?  When  you  arrive  at 
a  certain  distance  to  the  north  of  the  line  there  cannot  be  any  doubt  of  the 
result :  and  so  when  you  go  to  a  certain  distance  south,  the  result  will  be 
equally  certain  the  other  way.  But  in  the  great  central  regions,  where 
there  may  be  some  doubt  as  to  the  effect  of  natural  causes,  who  ought  to 
decide  the  question  except  the  people  residing  there,  who  have  all  their 
interest  there  ;  who  have  gone  there  to  live  with  their  wives  and  children  ? 
Any  party  which  attempts,  by  a  system  of  coercion,  to  force  any  institutions 
irvto  regions  not  adapted  to  them,  violates  the  great  principles  on  which 
our  government  is  founded. 

You  now  have  my  views  on  the  subject  of  slavery  in  the  Territories. 


184:  THE     LIFE      AND      SPEECHES      OF 

Practically,  they  amount  simply  to  this :  If  the  people  want  slavery  they 
will  have  it ;  if  they  do  not  want  it  they  will  not  have  it,  and  you  cannot 
force  it  upon  them.  If  these  principles  be  recognized  and  adhered  to,  we 
can  live  in  peace  and  harmony  together ;  but  just  as  surely  as  you  attempt 
to  force  the  people  to  have  slavery,  against  their  will,  in  regions  to  which 
it  is  not  adapted,  fanaticism  will  take  control  of  the  Federal  Government. 


FOREIGN    POLICY EXPANSION    THE    LAW     OF  OUK  EXISTENCE, 

A  few  words  more  and  I  am  done.  I  will  only  say  to  you,  in  conclusion, 
that  if  we  recognize  and  observe  this  principle  of  State  rights  and  self- 
government  for  the  people  of  the  Territories,  there  will  be  peace  forever 
between  the  North  and  South,  and  America  will  fulfill  the  glorious 
destiny  which  the  Almighty  has  marked  out  for  her.  She  will  re 
main  an  example  for  all  nations,  expanding  as  her  people  increase  and  her 
interests  demand  more  territory.  I  am  not  in  favor  of  the  acquisition  of 
territory  by  fraud,  violence,  or  improper  means  of  any  kind  ;  on  the  con 
trary,  I  would  never  permit  the  Federal  Government  to  be  an  instrument 
in  the  hands  of  foreign  powers  to  carry  out  their  purposes  upon  the  Amer 
ican  continent.  Let  us  adopt  a  policy  consistent  with  our  destiny,  and  then 
bide  our  time. 

[Mr.  Douglas  was  apparently  about  to  bring  his  remarks  to  a  close  at 
this  point,  when,  in  response  to  calls  of  "  Cuba  !  Cuba !"  from  the  audience, 
he  proceeded  thus  :] 

It  is  our  destiny  to  have  Cuba,  and  it  is  folly  to  debate  the  question.  It 
naturally  belongs  to  the  American  continent.  It  guards  the  mouth  of  the 
Mississippi  River,  which  is  the  heart  of  the  American  continent,  and  the 
body  of  the  American  nation. 

Its  acquisition  is  a  matter  of  time  only.  Our  government  should  adopt 
the  policy  of  receiving  Cuba  as  soon  as  a  fair  and  just  opportunity  shall  be 
presented.  Whether  that  opportunity  occur  next  year  or  the  year  after, 
whenever  the  occasion  arises  and  the  opportunity  presents  itself,  it  should 
be  embraced. 

The  same  is  true  of  Central  America  and  Mexico.  It  will  not  do  to  say 
we  have  territory  enough.  When  the  Constitution  was  formed,  there  was 
enough,  yet  in  a  few  years  afterward,  we  needed  more.  We  acquired 
Louisiana  and  Florida,  Texas  and  California,  just  as  the  increase  hi 
our  population  and  our  interest  demanded.  When,  in  1?50,  the  Clayton- 
Bulwer  treaty  was  sent  to  the  Senate  for  ratification,  I  fought  it  to  the 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  185 

end.  They  then  asked  what  I  wanted  with  Central  America.  I  told  them 
I  did  not  want  it  then,  but  the  time  would  come  when  we  must  have  it. 
They  then  asked  what  my  objection  to  the  treaty  was.  I  told  them  I  ob 
jected  to  that  among  other  clauses  of  it,  which  said  that  neither  Great 
Britain  nor  the  United  States  should  ever  buy,  annex,  colonize,  or  acquire 
any  portion  of  Central  America.  I  said  I  would  never  consent  to  a 
treaty  with  any  foreign  power,  pledging  ourselves  not  to  do  in  the  future 
whatever  interest  or  necessity  might  compel  us  to  do.  I  was  then  told 
by  veteran  senators,  as  my  distinguished  friend  well  knows  (looking  toward 
Mr.  Soule),  that  Central  America  was  so  far  off  that  we  should  never  want 
it.  I  told  them  then,  "  Yes  ;  a  good  way  off — half  way  to  California,  and 
on  the  direct  road  to  it."  I  said  it  was  our  right  and  duty  to  open  all  the 
highways  between  the  Atlantic  and  the  Gulf  States  and  our  possessions  ou 
the  Pacific,  and  that  I  would  enter  into  no  treaty  with  Great  Britain  or 
any  other  government  concerning  the  affairs  of  the  American  continent. 
And  here,  without  a  breach  of  confidence,  I  may  be  permitted  to  state  a 
conversation  which  took  place  at  that  time  between  myself  and  the  British 
minister,  Sir  Henry  Lytton  Bulwer,  on  that  point.  He  took  occasion  to 
remonstrate  with  me  that  my  position  with  regard  to  the  treaty  was  un 
just  and  untenable  ;  that  the  treaty  was  fair  because  it  was  reciprocal,  and 
it  was  reciprocal  because  it  pledged  that  neither  Great  Britain  nor  the 
United  States  should  ever  purchase,  colonize,  or  acquire  any  territory  in 
Central  America.  I  told  him  that  it  would  be  fair  if  they  would  add  one 
word  to  the  treaty — so  that  it  would  read  that  neither  Great  Britain  nor 
the  United  States  should  ever  occupy  or  hold  dominion  over  Central  Ame 
rica  or  Asia.  But  he  said:  "You  have  no  interest  in  Asia;"  "No," 
answered  I,  "  and  you  have  none  in  Central  America." 

"But,"  said  he,  "  you  can  never  establish  any  rights  in  Asia."  "No," 
.said  I,  "  and  we  don't  mean  that  you  shall  ever  establish  any  in  America." 
I  told  him  it  would  be  just  as  respectful  for  us  to  ask  that  pledge  in  re 
ference  to  Asia,  as  it  was  for  Great  Britain  to  ask  it  from  us  in  reference 
to  Central  America. 

If  experience  shall  continue  to  prove,  what  the  past  may  be  considered 
to  have  demonstrated,  that  those  little  Central  American  powers  cannot 
maintain  self-government,  the  interests  of  Christendom  require  that  some 
power  should  preserve  order  for  them.  Hence,  I  maintain  that  we  should 
adopt  and  observe  a  line  of  policy  in  unison  with  our  own  interests  and 
our  destiny.  I  do  not  wish  to  force  things.  We  live  in  a  rapid  age 
Events  crowd  upon  each  other  with  marvellous  rapidity.  I  do  not  want 


186  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

territory  any  faster  than  we  can  occupy,  Americanize,  and  civilize  i:.  I 
am  no  filibuster.  I  am  opposed  to  unlawful  expeditions ;  but  on  the  other 
hand,  I  am  opposed  to  this  country  acting  as  a  miserable  constabulary  for 
France  and  England. 

I  am  in  favor  of  expansion  as  fast  as  consistent  with  our  interest  and 
the  increase  and  development  of  our  population  and  resources.  But  I  am 
not  in  favor  of  that  policy  unless  the  great  principle  of  non-intervention 
and  the  right  of  the  people  to  decide  the  question  of  slavery,  and  all  other 
domestic  questions,  for  themselves  shall  be  maintained.  If  that  principle 
prevail,  we  have  a  future  before  us  more  glorious  than  th.it  of  any  other 
people  that  ever  existed.  Our  republic  will  endure  for  thousands  of 
years.  Progress  will  be  the  law  of  its  destiny ;  it  will  gain  new  strength 
with  every  State  brought  into  the  confederacy.  Then  there  will  be  peace 
and  harmony  between  the  free  States  and  the  slave  States.  The  more 
degrees  of  latitude  and  longitude  embraced  beneath  our  Constitution,  the 
better.  The  greater  the  variety  of  productions,  the  better;  for  then  we 
shall  have  the  principles  of  free  trade  apply  to  the  important  staples  of  the 
world,  making  us  the  greatest  planting  as  well  as  the  greatest  manufactur 
ing,  the  greatest  commercial,  as  well  as  the  greatest  agricultural  power  on 
the  globe. 

These  are  my  views  in  regard  to  our  foreign  relations.  They  are  ques 
tions  I  had  not  intended  to  discuss;  and  I  should  not  have  done  so  if  some 
gentleman  in  the  crowd  had  not  called  my  attention  to  them.  My  votes 
in  Congress  have  always  been  in  harmony  with  the  line  of  policy  I  l:;ive 
here  marked  out.  It  matters  not  whether  you  acquire  more  territory,  or 
how  much  or  how  little  you  wish  to  acquire.  Expansion  is  the  law  of  our 
existence  ;  when  we  cease  to  grow,  we  commence  to  decline.  Hence  our 
course  is  onward,  on  the  principle  established  by  our  fathers,  under  Divine 
inspiration,  as  I  believe,  in  the  formation  of  the  government. 

And  now  permit  me  to  return  my  grateful  acknowledgments  for  the 
kindness  with  which  you  have  listened  to  me,  and  to  retire. 

Mr.  Douglas  determined,  at  JSTew  Orleans,  to  take  the 
steamer  for  ISTew  York,  in  order  to  secure  relaxation  from 
his  recent  labor.  On  the  island  of  Cuba,  where  he  stopped  a 
fe\v  days  en  route,  he  was  treated  with  marked  attention  by 
the  authorities  and  people. 

Arriving  at  New  York,  he  found  that  elaborate  prepare 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  187 

tions  had  been  made  in  that  city  by  the  authorities  for  his 
reception.  Both  branches  of  the  Council,  by  a  unanimous 
vote,  had  extended  to  him  the  freedom  of  the  city,  and  had 
invited  him  to  become  its  guest. 


PREAMBLE  AND  RESOLUTIONS  OF  THE  BOARDS  OF  ALDERMEN 
AND  COUNCILMEN  OF  THE  CITY  OF  NEW  YORK. 

Whereas,  Information  has  been  received  that  the  Hon.  Stephen  A.  Dou 
glas,  United  States  senator  from  Illinois,  will  arrive  in  this  city  in  a  few 
days,  en  route  for  Washington,  and 

Whereas,  It  is  eminent^  due  this  esteemed  patriot  and  distinguished 
senator,  that  the  city  of  New  York,  through  its  constituted  authorities, 
should  extend  to  him  a  cordial  welcome  on  his  arrival,  in  order  to  express 
our  admiration  of  the  man,  and  of  the  principles  which  he  has  so  long  and 
go  ably  advocated  ; 

Therefore,  be  it  resolved,  That  a  committee  be  appointed  to  extend  to 
the  lion.  Stephen  A.  Douglas  the  hospitalities  of  the  city,  and  to  become 
the  guest  of  the  corporation  during  his  stay  in  New  York. 

And  be  it  further  resolved,  That  the  flags  be  displayed  on  the  City  Hall 
during  the  day  set  apart  for  the  reception  of  our  distinguished  guest. 

Accordingly,  Mr.  Douglas  was  met  at  the  wharf,  on  his 
arrival  at  New  York,  by  the  joint  committee  of  the  two 
boards  of  Common  Council,  and  escorted  to  the  Everett 
House.  During  his  sojourn  in  the  city,  he  was  treated  with 
such  demonstrations  of  respect  and  regard  as  few  public  men 
have  ever  received. 

No  sooner  had  the  news  of  Mr.  Douglas'  arrival  in  New 
York  reached  Philadelphia,  than  a  committee  of  eminent 
citizens  was  appointed  to  repair  to  New  York  and  tender 
Itirn  a  public  reception  in  Independence  Hall,  in  pursuance  of 
the  resolutions  of  the  Councils  of  Philadelphia,  unanimously 
tendering  its  use  for  that  purpose. 

Although  anxious  to  repair  at  once  to  Washington,  and 
avoid  all  further  demonstrations — for  his  journey  so  lar  had 


188  THE     LIFE     AND      SPEECHES     OF 

been  one  continuous  ovation — Mr.  Douglas  could  not  well  de 
cline  an  invitation  which  had  rarely,  if  ever,  been  extended 
to  any  American  who  had  held  a  less  position  than  President 
of  the  United  States. 

The  reader  will  hardly  fail  to  admire  the  speeches  whicn 
were  delivered  on  this  interesting  occasion. 

Wm.  E.  Lehman,  Esq.,  on  behalf  of  the  citizens'  committee, 
introduced  Senator  Douglas  to  the  Mayor  and  Council.  He 
said : 

MAYOR  HENRY  :  It  was  my  agreeable  duty  to  be  one  of  the  committee 
appointed  to  go  to  New  York,  and  wait  upon  the  distinguished  senator  of 
Illinois,  and  extend  to  him  a  cordial  invitation  to  visit  our  city.  In  the 
performance  of  that  duty,  I  not  only  represented  his  personal  and  political 
friends,  but,  in  a  measure,  the  corporate  authorities  of  the  city.  I  informed 
Senator  Douglas  that  the  councils  of  the  city,  without  distinction  of  party, 
had  unanimously  tendered  him  the  use  of  Independence  Hall  to  receive  his 
friends,  and  that  it  was  your  intention,  as  chief  magistrate  of  this  munici 
pality,  to  welcome  him.  I  deem  it  proper  to  state  that  the  senator,  in  his 
reply,  consented  to  waive  all  his  private  arrangements,  and  to  forego  en 
gagements  of  a  pressing  public  nature,  to  accept  this  grateful  tribute  of 
respect.  It  is  with  great  pleasure  that  I  now  introduce  to  you  the  illus 
trious  senator. 

Mayor  Henry  then  addressed  Senator  Douglas  in  the  fol 
lowing  : 

MR.  SENATOR  :  The  councils  of  Philadelphia  have  tendered  you,  in  pass 
ing  through  this  city,  the  use  of  the  Hall  of  Independence  for  the 
reception  of  your  friends,  and  in  their  name  I  welcome  you  upon  this 
occasion. 

This  spot  is  the  common  heritage  of  American  freemen.  Within  these 
walls,  memorable  for  the  most  illustrious  deed  in  our  country's  history, 
hallowed  more  than  once  by  the  ashes  of  the  mighty  dead,  cherished  as 
the  depository  of  the  mementoes  of  patriots  and  heroes,  all  other  senti 
ments  merge  in  that  of  unalloyed  devotion  to  the  Union,  its  prosperity 
and  its  perpetuity. 

I  greet  you,  sir,  as  a  member   of  those  national    councils  on  whom 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  189 

devolves  the  guardianship  of  our  nation's  interest  and  destiny ;  as  one 
whose  eminent  position  in  those  councils  has  elicited  the  admiration  and 
respect  of  so  many  of  your  fellow-citizens. 

Permit  me,  individually,  to  express  my  wishes  for  your  personal  welfare, 
and  the  assurance  that  the  hospitality  of  Philadelphia  will  be  well  cared 
for  by  your  surrounding  frionds. 


SENATOR  DOUGLAS'  SPEECH. 

Senator  Douglas,  in  response,  said :  MR.  MAYOR — It  has  fallen  to  my  lot, 
as  a  public  man,  and  as  a  politician,  to  receive  many  testimonials  from 
political  and  partisan  friends,  which,  under  the  circumstance?,  were  most 
grateful  to  my  feelings ;  but  the  tender  of  the  use  of  this  hall  voluntarily, 
and  as  I  am  informed,  by  the  unanimous  sentiment  of  the  corporate  autho 
rities  of  the  city  of  Philadelphia — this  hall,  within  whose  sacred  preciricta 
no  thought,  no  sentiment,  can  enter  any  citizen's  breast  inconsistent  with 
the  peace  of  the  republic  and  the  perpetuity  of  the  Union — is  a  compli 
ment  that  overwhelms  me  with  gratitude.  In  this  hall  we  find  the  pictures, 
and  we  feel  the  influence  of  the  spirit,  of  those  sages  and  patriots  to  whom 
we  owe  our  independence  and  our  constitutional  form  of  government. 
Here  that  sentiment  which  now  animates  all  the  free  governments  of  the 
earth  first  found  its  authoritative  exposition  and  proclamation.  There 
stands  the  bell  which  "  proclaimed  liberty  throughout  the  land,  unto  all  the 
inhabitants  thereof;"  and  it  seems  as  if  the  inscription  it  bears  was  directed 
by  the  hand  of  Divine  Providence,  for  it  was  placed  upon  it  far  in  advance 
of  the  period  when  any  human  brain  could  foresee  that  it  was  to  be  used  to 
proclaim  the  independence  of  America  over  the  arbitrary  decrees  of  a 
British  parliament.  The  great  principle  proclaimed  by  the  fathers  of  the 
republic  in  this  hall,  was  the  right  of  the  people  of  all  the  States,  of  all  tho 
provinces  and  dependencies,  and  of  every  community,  to  regulate  its  own 
domestic  concerns  and  internal  affairs  in  its  own  way.  Pennsylvania  has 
always  been  true  to  that  cardinal  principle  of  representative  government. 
Pennsylvania,  with  her  Franklin,  and  those  congenial  spirits  who  gave  im 
pulse  to  the  Revolution,  foresaw  that  the  time  might  come  when,  afte:. 
having  maintained  her  independence  against  the  British  parliament, 
another  imperial  parliament  might  be  established  on  her  own  continent, 
equally  destructive  to  the  liberties  of  the  people  and  the  rights  of  the  citi 
zens,  and  henco  Pennsylvania,  in  her  instructions  to  her  delegates  who 
represented  her  in  this  hall,  when  she  anticipated  the  D?claration  of  Inde- 


190  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

pendence,  empowered  them  to  give  her  assent  to  that  declaration,  on  the 
fundamental  condition  that  Pennsylvania  retained  unto  herself  forever  the 
right  to  manage  her  local  and  domestic  concerns  and  police  regulations 
in  her  own  way,  independent  of  any  other  power  on  the  face  of  the 
globe. 

Sir  :  If  we  remain  true  to  these  great  principles  of  constitutional  liberty 
proclaimed  by  our  fathers  in  this  hall,  and  consummated  by  the  Constitu 
tion  of  the  United  States  within  the  precincts  of  Philadelphia,  this  Union 
may  last  forever  as  our  forefathers  made  it,  each  State  retaining  just  such 
local  and  domestic  institutions  as  it  shall  choose.  If  my  devotion  to  these 
constitutional,  conservative  principles  of  liberty  have  attracted  to  me  the 
attention  of  the  constituted  authorities  of  this  vast  city,  it  is  ample  reward 
for  all  of  the  toils  that  have  accompanied  my  public  life.  I  appreciate  it  a, 
thousand  times  more  than  any  partisan  triumph  which  a  transient  poli 
tician  may  acquire  in  the  road  through  life,  for  such  a  triumph  must  neces 
sarily  be  ephemeral  in  its  character. 

Mr.  Mayor,  discarding  all  partisan  spirit,  as  you  have  done,  I  accept  thig 
honor  with  a  grateful  heart.  I  have  not  the  vanity  that  would  receive  it 
as  a  mark  of  mere  personal  respect.  I  am  glad  to  know  that  I  have  the 
esteem  individually  of  yourself,  and  of  those  you  represent ;  but  it  is  far 
more  grateful  to  me,  as  a  public  man,  to  know  that  your  sympathy  is 
aroused  by  public  services  calculated  to  sustain  and  perpetuate  those  prin 
ciples  of  civil  and  religious  liberty  which  our  fathers  have  translated  to  us. 
May  we  be  successful  in  handing  down  to  our  children,  and  through  our 
children  to  our  latest  posterity,  those  immortal  principles  which  were  first 
proclaimed  in  this  hall,  the  witnesses  of  which  stand  now,  like  guardian 
angels,  looking  down  upon  our  every  act,  and  inspiring  our  prayers  to 
Heaven  that  this  Union,  this  Constitution,  these  States,  as  they  exist,  and 
have  existed,  may  last  forever,  not  only  for  the  protection  of  our  own 
people,  but  as  a  guide  to  the  friends  of  freedom  throughout  the  world. 

Returning  my  grateful  acknowledgments,  I  can  only  say  that  when  I 
leave  here  I  shall  carry  with  me  a  recollection  of  this  day  which  will  never 
be  effaced  while  life  lasts,  and  over  the  memory  of  which,  I  trust,  my 
children  will  feel  more  proud  than  of  any  act  that  has  heretofore  marked 
my  public  life. 

This  great  mark  of  respect  to  Mr.  Douglas  was  to  be  the 
more  appreciated,  coming  as  it  did  from  authorities  the 
majority  of  whom  were  his  political  opponents,  and  was  con- 


STEPHEN     A       DOUGLAS.  191 

curred  in  by  the  citizens,  embracing  every  shade  of  political 
opinions. 

The  arrangements  for  Mr.  Douglas'  reception  in  Phila 
delphia  by  his  political  friends  were  imposing  beyond  descrip 
tion.  Cannon,  fire-works,  music  welcomed  his  arrival,  while 
a  vast  concourse  of  citizens  escorted  him  to  his  hotel,  through 
thronged  streets  rendered  brilliant  by  the  illumination  of  the 
houses. 

At  Havre  De  Grace,  Mr.  Douglas  was  met  by  a  deputa 
tion  of  citizens  from  Baltimore ;  the  chairman  of  which 
delivered  an  eloquent  address  of  congratulation  upon  the 
glorious  triumph  which  he  had  recently  achieved  in  Illinois 
over  the  enemies  of  the  Constitution  and  the  Union,  and 
insisted  that  he  should  accept  the  hospitalities  of  his  political 
friends  in  the  Monumental  City. 

Yielding  to  their  request,  Mr.  Douglas  addressed  that 
night  a  large  assemblage  of  citizens  on  Monument  Square, 
and  the  following  day  had  a  public  reception. 

After  a  brief  recapitulation  of  the  issues  determined  by  the 
people  of  Illinois,  at  the  late  election,  Mr.  Douglas,  in  con 
clusion,  said : 

"  My  friends,  I  have  given  you  an  epitome  of  the  principles  which  I  dis 
cussed  in  Illinois  in  the  late  contest  with  the  abolitionists  and  their  allies. 
I  appealed  to  the  people  of  Illinois  by  their  love  for  the  American  Union,  to 
preserve  sacred  the  fraternal  feeling  between  the  old  and  the  new,  the 
free  and  slave  States;  I  pointed  them  to  Bunker's  Hill,  to  Bennington,  to 
Saratoga  and  to  Monmouth ;  I  pointed  them  to  King's  Mountain,  Guilford 
Court  House,  and  to  Yorktown ;  I  showed  them  that  in  the  Kevolution, 
northern  and  southern  men  stood  shoulder  to  shoulder  in  a. common  cause, 
fought  under  the  same  banner,  poured  out  their  blood  in  common  streams, 
and  shared  common  graves  to  secure  the  liberty  which  we  now  enjoy. 
Why  cannot  northern  and  southern  men  live  under  this  Constitution  in 
the  same  spirit  in  which  our  fathers  framed  it.  I  believe  that  if  these 
principles  are  firmly  adhered  to  and  faithfully  carried  out,  this  glorious 
Union  can  exist  forever,  divided  into  free  and  slave  States,  as  our  fathers 


192  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

made  it,  each  State  retaining  the  right  to  have  just  such  laws  and  institu 
tions  as  it  may  choose,  and  to  modify  and  change  them  as  it  may  see  pro 
per.  I  renew  to  you  my  grateful  acknowledgments  for  the  kind  and 
respectful  manner  in  which  you  have  listened  to  me,  and  beg  to  bid  you 
good  night. 

The  last  and  crowning  feature  of  this  triumphal  tour  was 
the  receipt  of  a  telegraphic  dispatch  by  Mr.  Douglas,  at 
Baltimore,  just  as  he  was  entering  the  cars  for  Washington, 
announcing  his  reelection  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  by 
the  legislature  of  Illinois,  by  a  majority  of  eight  votes,  hav 
ing  received  the  vote  of  every  Democratic  member  in  each 
House. 


STEPHEN     A.    DOUGLAS.  193 


CHAPTER  XV. 

Mr.  Douglas  again  in  Washington — Experiences  a  Change  of  Atmosphere- 
Scene  shifts — Removed  from  Post  of  Chairman  of  Territorial  Commit 
tee — His  Services  as  Chairman — Pretext  of  Removal — Freeport  Speech — 
Letter  to  California  in  reply  to  Dr.  Gwin. 

WHEX  Mr.  Douglas  reached  Washington,  where  Executive 
power  and  patronage  stifles  popular  sentiment,  he  found  him 
self  suddenly  plunged  into  a  very  different  atmosphere  from 
that  which  he  had  been  breathing  in  the  past  few  weeks. 
Failing  in  their  efforts  to  defeat  his  reelection  to  the  Senate 
by  a  disreputable  coalition  with  the  abolitionists  of  Illinois, 
his  enemies  contrived  a  new  scheme  to  humble  and  degrade 
the  unsubdued  rebel.  For  thirteen  years  previous,  he  had 
been  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Territories,  two  years  in 
the  House  and  eleven  in  the  Senate.  In  that  capacity,  he 
had  reported  and  successfully  carried  through  Congress  bills 
for  the  admission  of  the  following  States  :  Texas,  Iowa,  Wis 
consin,  California,  Oregon,  and  Minnesota. 

During  the  same  period,  he  had  reported  and  successfully 
carried  through  Congress  bills  to  organize  the  following  Ter 
ritories  :  Oregon,  Minnesota,  New  Mexico,  Utah,  Washing 
ton,  Kansas,  and  Nebraska.  In  that  time,  he  had  met  and 
mastered  every  intricate  question  which  had  arisen  connected 
with  the  organization  of  the  Territories  and  the  admission  of 
new  States.  Confessedly,  he  was  more  familiar  with  all  sub 
jects  pertaining  to  Territorial  legislation,  than  any  other  liv 
ing  man.  His  peculiar  qualifications  and  acquaintance  with 


THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

the  subject,  induced  the  Senate,  on  the  day  of  his  first 
entrance  into  that  body,  to  put  him  at  the  head  of  the  Terri 
torial  Committee.  He  had  been  unanimously  nominated  in 
the  Democratic  caucus,  and  reflected  chairman  of  that  com 
mittee  each  succeeding  year.  With  a  full  knowledge  on  the 
part  of  every  senator  of  his  views  and  opinions  on  Territorial 
policy,  what  excuse  can  be  given  for  the  removal  of  a  man 
from  a  position  which  he  had  so  long  filled  with  such  distin 
guished  ability,  and  for  which  he  was  so  eminently  qualified  ? 
With  or  without  excuse,  however,  the  deed  was  consum 
mated  in  a  secret  caucus,  and  in  Mr.  Douglas'  absence.  The 
public  indignation  at  his  removal  -was  almost  universal. 
Indeed,  so  heavily  has  it  fallen  on  those  engaged  in  it,  but 
three  or  four  senators  have  ever  had  the  boldness  to  confess 
themselves  parties  to  the  act,  and  ever  these  have  assigned 
a  reason  as  a  pretext  for  the  deed,  which  is  an  insult  to  the 
intelligence  of  the  American  people,  and  but  a  poor  compli 
ment  to  their  own  understanding ;  because  they  aifect  to  call 
in  question  Mr.  Douglas'  political  orthodoxy  for  the  expres 
sion  of  an  opinion  in  his  Illinois  campaign,  which  he  had 
advanced  and  elaborated  in  his  speeches  on  the  Compromise 
measures  of  1850,  and  upon  the  passage  of  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  Bill,  and  indeed  upon  every  discussion  of  the 
slavery  question  in  which  he  had  participated  for  the  ten 
years  previous  to  his  removal. 

Notwithstanding  Mr.  Douglas,  in  all  his  joint  debates  with 
Mr.  Lincoln,  in  Illinois,  had  taken  direct  issue  with  himonallhis 
abolition  propositions — assuming  bold  ground  against  negro 
citizenship — reasserting  his  old  position,  that  aniformity  in 
the  institutions  of  the  various  States  was  neither  possible  nor 
desirable — treating  negro-slavery  as  purely  a  question  of 
climate,  production,  and  political  economy,  to  be  regulated 
by  their  inexorable  laws — sustaining  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law, 
and  avowing  his  willingness,  if  not  strong  enough,  to  vote  to 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  195 

make  it  stronger — maintaining  the  binding  force  of  all 
supreme  judicial  decisions — vindicating  the  equality  of  all 
the  States,  and  proclaiming  the  right  of  all  their  citizens  to 
emigrate  into  the  common  Territories  on  the  basis  of  an 
entire  equality  under  the  local  law,  with  their  property  of  all 
descriptions,  whether  horses,  clocks,  negroes  or  what  not — • 
denouncing  the  doctrines  of  the  "  irrepressible  conflict," 
when  advanced  by  Lincoln  four  months  prior  to  Seward's 
Rochester  speech — sustaining  the  regular  organization  of  the 
Democratic  party,  and  maintaining  the  Democratic  creed  as 
enunciated  in  the  Cincinnati  platform ; — notwithstanding  all 
these  facts,  they  seize  on  an  answer  of  Mr.  Douglas  to  a 
question  propounded  by  Mr.  Lincoln  at  Freeport,  garble  it 
from  its  context  and  present  it  to  the  country  as  the  reason 
for  his  removal  from  the  chairmanship  of  the  Committee  on 
Territories. 

It  went  for  nothing  that  Col.  Jefferson  Davis  had  uttered, 
a  few  weeks  before,  at  Portland,  similar  views  touching  the 
power  -of  the  people  of  the  Territories,  which  Mr.  Douglas 
quoted  and  indorsed  in  a  joint  debate  with  Mr.  Lincoln  at 
Alton,  as  containing  his  own  views — nothing  that  Stephens. 
Orr,  Cobb,  and  a  host  of  Democratic  lights,  great  and  small, 
were  committed  to  the  same  proposition — nothing  that  Mr. 
Douglas  was  simply  repeating  as  the  Washington  "  Union"  at 
that  time  in  an  elaborate  article  charged  and  proved  (alleg 
ing  that  he  was  consistently  unsound),  what  he  had  uttered 
frequently  in  the  debates  on  the  Compromise  measures  of 
1850 — nothing  that  Col.  Richardson,  when  the  Democratic 
candidate  for  Speaker,  in  1855,  had  expressed  similar  opinions, 
and  received,  afterward,  every  Democratic  vote  in  tho 
House — it  booted  nothing  that  Mr.  Douglas  was  on  record 
one  hundred  times  advocating  the  same  doctrine  while  these 
very  men  (his  present  accusers)  were  his  advocates  for  the 
Presidency.  These  things  all  stood  for  nothing. 


196  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 


ME.  DOUGLAS'  CALIFORNIA  LETTER. 

It  is  a  remarkable  fact,  that  while  Mr.  Douglas  was  removed 
from  the  Committee  on  Territories  in  December,  1858,  no 
senator  ever  publicly  assigned  Mr.  Douglas'  Freeport  speech 
as  a  cause  for  it,  until  in  July,  1859,  Dr.  Gwin  gave  this 
reason  in  a  speech  in  California.  Mr.  Douglas  promptly 
replied  to  Dr.  G win's  speech,  in  a  letter  addressed  to  the 
editor  of  the  San  Francisco  "National,"  from  which  we 
extract  so  much  as  relates  to  this  subject : 

The  country  is  now  informed  for  the  first  time  that  I  was  removed  from 
the  post  of  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Territories  because  of  the  senti 
ments  contained  in  my  "  Freeport  speech."  To  use  the  language  of  Mr. 
Gwin,  "  The  doctrines  he  had  avowed  in  his  Freeport  speech  had  been 
condemned  in  the  Senate  by  his  removal  from  the  chairmanship  of  the 
Territorial  Committee  of  that  body."  The  country  will  bear  in  mind  this 
testimony,  that  I  was  not  removed  because  of  any  personal  unkindness  or 
hostility ;  nor  in  consequence  of  my  course  on  the  Lecompton  question, 
or  in  respect  to  the  administration  ;  but  that  it  was  intended  as  a  condem 
nation  of  the  doctrines  avowed  in  my  "Freeport  speech."  The  only  posi 
tion  taken  in  my  "  Freeport  speech,"  which  I  have  ever  seen  criticised  or 
controverted,  may  be  stated  in  a  single  sentence,  and  was  in  reply  to  an 
interrogatory  propounded  by  my  competitor  for  the  Senate  :  "  That  "  the 
Territorial  legislature  could  lawfully  exclude  slavery,  either  by  non-action 
or  unfriendly  legislation."  This  opinion  was  not  expressed  by  me  at  Free- 
port  for  the  first  time.  I  have  expressed  the  same  opinion  often  in  the 
Senate,  freely  and  frequently,  in  the  presence  of  those  senators  who,  as 
Mr.  Gwin  testifies,  removed  me  "from  the  chairmanship  of  the  Committee 
on  Territories,"  ten  years  after  they  knew  that  I  held  the  opinion,  and 
would  never  surrender  it. 

I  could  fill  many  columns  of  the  "National"  with  extracts  of  speeches 
made  by  me  during  the  discussion  of  the  Compromise  measures  in  1850, 
and  in  defence  of  the  principles  embodied  in  those  measures  in  1851  and 
1852,  in  the  discussion  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Bill  in  1854,  and  of  the 
Kansas  difficulties  and  the  Topeka  revolutionary  movements  in  1856,  in  all 
of  which  I  expressed  the  same  opinion  and  defended  the  same  position 
which  was  assumed  in  the  "  Freeport  speeech."  I  will  not,  however,  bur- 


STEPHEN     A.    DOUGLAS.  197 

den  your  columns  or  weary  your  readers  with  extracts  of  all  these  speeches, 
but  will  refer  you  to  each  volume  of  the  "Congressional  Globe"  for  the 
last  ten  years,  where  you  will  find  them  fully  reported.  If  you  cannot 
conveniently  procure  the  the  "  Congressional  Globe,"  I  refer  you  to  an 
editorial  article  in  the  Washington  "Union"  of  October  5,  1858,  which,  it 
was  reported,  received  the  sanction  of  the  President  of  the  United  States 
previously  to  its  publication,  a  few  weeks  after  my  "Freeport  speech"  had 
been  delivered.  The  "  Union"  made  copious  extracts  of  my  speeches  in 
1850  and  1854,  to  prove  that  at  each  of  those  periods  I  held  the  same 
opinions  which  I  expressed  at  Freeport  in  1858,  and,  consequently,  de 
clared  that  I  never  was  a  good  Democrat,  much  less  sound  on  the  slavery 
question,  when  I  advocated  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850,  and  the 
Kansas-Nebraska  Bill  in  1854. 

In  the  article  referred  to,  the  Washington  Union  said : 

"  We  propose  to  show  that  Judge  Douglas'  action  in  1350  and  1854  was  taken  with 
especial  reference  to  the  announcement  of  doctrine  and  programme  which  was  made  at 
Freeport.  The  declaration  at  Freeport  was,  that  in  his  opinion  the  people  can,  by 
lawful  means,  exclude  slavery  from  a  Territory  before  it  comes  in  as  a  State;'  and  he 
declared  that  his  competitor  had  'heard  him  argue  the  Nebraska  Bill  on  that  principle 
all  over  Illinois  in  1854, 1855,  and  185C,  and  had  no  excuse  to  pretend  to  have  any  doubt 
on  that  subject.' " 

T)  e  Union  summed  up  the  evidence  furnished  by  my  speeches  in  the 
Semte  in  1850  and  1854,  that  the  "  Freport  speech"  was  consistent  with 
my  former  course,  with  this  emphatic  declaration . 

"Thus  we  have  shown  that  precisely  the  position  assumed  by  Judge  Douglas  at  Free- 
port  had  been  maintained  iy  him  in  1850,  in  the  debates  and  votes  on  the  Utah  and  New 
Mexican  Bills,  and  in  1854  on  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Bill ;  and  have  shown  that  it  waj 
owing  to  his  opposition  that  clauses  depriving  Territorial  legislatures  of  the  power  of 
excluding  slavery  from  their  jurisdictions  were  not  expressly  inserted  in  these  meapures." 

The  evidence  thus  presented  by  the  Washington  "  Union" — the  evidence 
of  an  open  enemy — is  so  full  and  conclusive,  that  I  have  uniformly  advo 
cated  for  ten  years  past  the  same  principles  which  I  avowed  at  Freeport, 
that  I  cannot  refrain  from  asking  you  to  spread  the  entire  article  before 
your  readers,  as  an  appendix,  if  you  choose,  to  this  letter. 

The  question  whether  the  people  of  the  Territories  should  be  permitted 
to  decide  the  slavery  question  for  themselves,  the  same  as  all  other  right 
ful  subjects  of  legislation,  was  thoroughly  discussed  and  definitively  settled 
in  the  adoption  of  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850.  The  Territorial  bills, 
at»  originally  reported  on  by  the  Committee  on  Territories,  extended  tho 


198  THE     LIPE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

authority  of  the  Territorial  legislature  to  all  rightful  subjects  of  legislation 
consistent  with  the  Constitution,  without  excepting  African  slavery.  Modi 
fied  by  the  Committee  of  Thirteen,  they  conferred  power  on  the  .Territorial 
legislature  over  all  rightful  subjects  of  legislation,  except  African  slavery. 
This  distinct  question,  involving  the  power  of  the  Territorial  legislature 
over  the  subject  of  African  slavery,  was  debated  in  the  Senate  from  the  8th 
of  May  until  the  31st  of  July,  1850,  when  the  limitation  was  stricken  out 
by  a  vote  of  yeas  33,  nays  19;  and  the  Territorial  legislature  authorized 
to  legislate  on  all  rightful  subjects,  without  excepting  African  slavery.  In 
this  form  and  upon  this  principle,  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850  were 
enacted. 

When  I  returned  to  my  home  in  Chicago,  at  the  end  of  the  session  of 
Congress,  after  the  adoption  of  the  measures  of  adjustment,  the  excite 
ment  was  intense.  The  City  Council  had  passed  a  resolution  nullifying 
the  Fugitive  Slave  Act,  and  releasing  the  police  from  all  obligations  to 
obey  the  law  or  assist  in  its  execution.  Amidst  this  furious  excitement, 
and  surrounded  by  revolutionary  movements,  I  addressed  the  assembled 
populace.  My  speech,  in  which  I  defended  each  and  all  of  the  Compro 
mise  measures  of  1850,  was  published  at  the  time,  and  spread  broadcast 
throughout  the  country.  I  herewith  send  you  a  copy  of  that  speech,  in 
which  you  will  find  that  I  said — 

"  These  measures  are  predicated  on  the  great  fundamental  principle  that  every  people 
ought  to  possess  the  right  of  forming  and  regulating  their  own  internal  concerns  and 
domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way.  It  was  supposed  that  those  of  our  fellow-citizens 
who  emigrated  to  the  shores  of  the  Pacific  and  to  our  other  territories,  were  as  capable 
of  self-government  as  their  neighbors  and  kindred  whom  they  left  behind  them  ;  and 
there  was  no  reason  for  believing  that  they  have  lost  any  of  their  intelligence  or  patriot 
ism  by  the  wayside,  while  crossing  the  Isthmus  or  the  Plains.  It  was  also  believed  thai 
after  their  arrival  in  the  country,  when  they  had  become  familiar  with  its  topography, 
climate,  productions,  and  resources,  and  had  connected  their  destiny  with  it,  they  were 
fully  as  competent  to  judge  for  themselves  what  kind  of  laws  and  institutions  were  best 
adapted  to  their  condition  and  interests,  as  we  were,  who  never  saw  the  country,  and 
knew  very  little  about  it.  To  question  their  competency  to  do  this  was  to  deny  their 
capacity  for  self-government.  If  they  have  the  requisite  intelligence  and  honesty  to  be 
intrusted  with  the  enactment  of  laws  for  the  government  of  white  men,  I  know  of  no 
reason  why  they  should  not  be  deemed  competent  to  legislate  for  the  negro.  If  they 
are  sufficiently  enlightened  to  make  laws  for  the  protection  of  life,  liberty,  and  property 
— of  morals  and  education — to  determine  the  relation  of  husband  and  wife,  of  parent 
and  child— I  am  not  aware  that  it  requires  any  higher  degree  of  civilization  to  regulate 
the  affairs  of  master  and  servant.  These  things  are  all  confided  by  the  Constitution  to 
each  State  to  decide  for  itself,  and  I  know  of  no  reason  why  the  same  principle  should 
not  be  extended  to  the  Territories." 

This  epeech  was  laid  on  the  desk  of  every  member  of  the  Senate,  at  tho 


STEPHEN     A.    DOUGLAS.  199 

opening  of  the  pccond  session  of  the  31st  Congress,  in  December,  1S5C, 
when,  with  a  full  knowledge  of  my  opinions  on  the  Territorial  question,  I 
was  unanimously  nominated  in  the  Democratic  caucus,  and  reflected  by 
the  Senate  chairman  of  the  Committee  oa  Territories.  Prom  that  time 
to  this  I  have  spoken  the  same  sentiments,  and  vindicated  the  same  posi 
tions  in  debate  in  the  Senate,  and  have  been  reflected  chairman  of  the 
Committee  on  Territories  at  each  session  of  Congress,  until  last  December, 
by  the  unanimous  voice  of  the  Democratic  party  in  caucus  and  in  the  Sen 
ate,  with  my  opinions  ou  this  Territorial  question  well  known  to,  and  well 
understood  by  every  senator.  Yet  Mr.  Gwin  testifies  that  I  was  condemned 
and  deposed  by  the  Senate  for  the  utterance  of  opinions  in  1858,  which 
were  put  on  record  year  after  year  so  plainly  and  so  unequivocally  as  to 
leave  neither  the  Senate  nor  the  country  in  dou-bt.  Thus  does  Mr.  Gwin, 
in  his  eagerness  to  be  my  public  accuser,  speak  hie  own  condemnation,  for 
he  voted  for  me  session  after  session,  with  my  opinions,  the  same  that  I 
spoke  at  Freeport,  stariog  him  in  the  face. 

On  the  4th  of  January,  1854,  I  reported  the  Nebraska  Bill,  and,  aa 
chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Territories,  accompanied  it  with  a  special 
report,  in  which  I .  stated  distinctly  "  that  all  questions  pertaining  to 
.slavery  in  the  Territories,  and  in  the  new  States  to  be  formed  therefrom, 
are  to  be  left  to  the  decision  of  the  people  residing  therein,  by  their  appro 
priate  representatives  to  be  chosen  by  them  for  th'-it  purpose."  And  that 
the  bill  proposed  "  to  carry  these  propositions  and  principles  into  practical 
operation  iu  the  precise  language  of  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850." 
The  Kansas-Nebraska  Act,  as  it  stands  on  the  statute  book,  does  define  the 
power  of  the  Territorial  legislature  "  in  the  precise  language  of  the  Com 
promise  measures  of  1850."  It  gives  the  legislature  power  over  all 
rightful  subjects  of  legislation  not  inconsistent  with  the  Constitution, 
without  excepting  African  slavery.  During  the  discussion  of  the  measure 
it  was  suggested  that  it  was  necessary  to  repeal  the  8th  section  of  the  act 
of  the  6th  of  March,  1850,  called  the  Missouri  Compromise,  in  order  to 
permit  the  people  to  control  the  slavery  question  while  they  remained  in  a 
Territorial  condition,  and  before  they  became  a  State  of  the  Union.  That 
was  the  object  and  only  purpose  for  which  the  Missouri  Compromise  was 
repealed. 

On  the  night  of  the  3d  of  March,  1854,  in  my  closing  speech  on  the 
Kansas-Nebraska  Bill,  a  few  hours  before  it  passed  the  Senate,  I  said  :  "  It 
is  only  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  out  this  great  fundamental  principle  of 
self-government  that  the  bill  renders  the  8th  section  of  the  Missouii  Act 
inoperative  and  void."  The  article  of  the  Washington  "  Union  "  of  October 


200  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

5,  1858,  to  which  I  have  referred,  quotes  this  and  other  passages  of  ray 
speech  on  that  occasion,  to  prove  that  the  author  of  the  Nebraska  Bill 
framed  it  with  express  reference  to  conferring  on  the  Territorial  legisla 
ture  power  to  control  the  slavery  question.  And  further,  that  I  boldly 
avowed  the  purpose  at  the  time  in  the  presence  of  all  the  friends  of  the 
bill,  and  urged  its  passage  upon  that  ground.  I  have  never  understood 
that  Mr.  Gwin,  or  any  other  senator  who  heard  that  speech  and  voted  for 
the  bill  the  same  night,  expressed  any  dissent  or  disapprobation  of  the 
doctrines  it  announced.  That  was  the  time  for  dissent  and  disapprobation  ; 
that  was  the  time  to  condemn,  if  there  were  cause  to  condemn,  and  not 
four  or  five  years  later.  The  record  furnishes  uo  such  evidence  of  dissent 
or  disapprobation  ;  nor  does  the  history  of  those  times  show  that  the 
Democratic  party,  in  the  North  or  in  the  South,  or  in  any  portion  of  the 
country,  repudiated  the  fundamental  principle  upon  which  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  Act  is  founded,  and  proscribed  its  advocates  and  defenders. 

If  Mr.  Gwin  did  not  understand  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Bill  when  it  was 
under  consideration,  according  to  its  plain  meaning  as  explained  and 
defended  by  its  authors  and  supporters,  it  is  not  the  fault  of  those  who 
did  understand  it  precisely  as  I  interpreted  it  at  Freeport,  and  as  the 
country  understood  it  in  the  Presidential  canvass  of  ISod.  Mr.  Buchanan, 
and  leading  members  of  his  cabinet,  at  all  events,  understood  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  Act  in  the  same  sense  in  which  it  was  understood  and  defended 
at  the  time  of  its  passage.  Mr.  Buchanan,  in  his  letter  accepting  the 
Cincinnati  nomination,  affirmed  that  "  this  legislation  is  founded  upon 
principles  as  ancient  as  free  government  itself,  and,  in  accordance  with 
them,  has  simply  declared  that  the  people  of  a  Territory,  like  those  of  a 
State,  shall  decide  for  themselves  whether  slavery  shall  or  shall  not  exist 
within  their  limits."  General  Cass,  now  secretary  of  state,  has  always 
maintained,  from  the  day  he  penned  the  "  Nicholson  Letter  "  to  this,  that 
the  people  of  the  Territories  have  a  right  to  decide  the  slavery  question 
for  themselves  whenever  they  please.  In  1856,  on  the  2d  day  of  July, 
referring  to  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act,  he  said :  "  I  believe  the  original 
act  gave  the  Territorial  legislature  of  Kansas  full  power  to  exclude  or 
allow  slavery."  Mr.  Toucey,  the  secretary  of  the  navy,  interpreted  that 
act  in  the  same  way,  and,  on  the  same  occasion  in  the  Senate,  said : 

"The  original  act  recognizes  in  the  Territorial  legislature  all  the  power  which  they  can 
have,  subject  to  the  Constitution,  and  subject  to  the  organic  law  of  the  Territory." 

Mr.  Cobb,  the  secretary  of  the  treasury,  in  a  speech  at  West  Chester, 
Pennsylvania,  on  the  19th  of  September,  1856,  advocating  Mr.  Buchanan's 
election  to  the  Presidency,  said  : 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  201 

"The  government  of  the  United  States  should  not  force  the  institution  of  slavery  upon 
the  people  either  of  the  Territories  or  of  the  States,  against  the  will  of  the  people,  though 
my  voice  could  bring  about  that  result.  I  stand  upon  the  principle — the  people  of  my 
State  decide  it  for  themselves,  you  for  yourselves,  the  people  of  Kansas  for  themselves- 
That  is  the  Constitution,  and  I  stand  by  the  Constitution."  And  again,  in  the  same  speech, 
he  said  :  "  Whether  they  "  (the  people  of  a  Territory)  "  decide  it  by  prohibiting  it,  ac 
cording  to  the  one  doctrine,  or  by  refusing  to  pass  laws  to  protect  it,  as  contended  for 
by  the  other  party,  is  immaterial.  The  majority  of  the  people,  by  the  action  of  the 
Territorial  legislature,  will  decide  the  question;  and  all  must  abide  the  decision  when 
made." 

Here  ;ve  find  the  doctrines  of  the  Freeport  speech,  including  "  non-ac 
tion  "  and  "  unfriendly  legislation  "  as  a  lawful  and  proper  mode  for  the  ex 
clusion  of  slavery  from  a  Territory  clearly  defined  by  Mr.  Cobb,  and  the 
election  of  Mr.  Buchanan  advocated  on  those  identical  doctrines.  Mr. 
Cobb  made  similar  speeches  during  the  Presidential  canvass  in  other 
sections  of  Pennsylvania,  in  Maine,  Indiana,  and  most  of  the  northern 
States,  and  was  appointed  secretary  of  the  treasury  by  Mr.  Buchanan  as 
a  mark  of  gratitude  for  the  efficient  services  which  had  been  thus  rendered. 
Will  any  senator  who  voted  to  remove  me  from  the  chairmanship  of  the 
Territorial  Committee  for  expressing  opinions  for  which  Mr.  Cobb,  Mr. 
Toucey,  and  General  Cass  were  rewarded,  pretend  that  he  did  not  know- 
that  they  or  either  of  them  had  ever  uttered  such  opinions  when  their 
nominations  were  before  the  Senate  ?  I  am  sure  that  no  senator  will 
make  so  humiliating  a  confession.  Why,  then,  were  those  distinguished 
gentlemen  appointed  by  the  President  and  confirmed  by  the  Senate  ag 
cabinet  ministers  if  they  were  not  good  Democrats — sound  on  the  slavery 
question,  and  faithful  exponents  of  the  principles  and  creed  of  the  party!' 
Is  it  not  a  significant  fact  that  the  President  and  the  most  distinguishec1 
and  honored  of  his  cabinet  should  have  been  solemnly  and  irrevocable 
pledged  to  this  monstrous  heresy  of  "  popular  sovereignty,"  for  asserting 
which  the  Senate,  by  Mr.  Gwin's  frank  avowal,  condemned  me  to  the 
extent  of  their  power? 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind,  however,  that  the  President  and  members  of 
the  cabinet  are  not  the  only  persons  high  in  authority  who  are  committed 
to  the  principle  of  self-government  in  the  Territories.  The  Hon.  John  C. 
Brcckinridge,  the  Vice-President  of  the  United  States,  was  a  member  of 
the  House  of  Representatives  when  the  Kansas-Xebraska  Bill  passed,  and 
in  a  speech  delivered  March  23,  1854,  said: 

"  Among  the  many  misrepresentations  sent  to  the  country  by  some  of  the  enemies  of 
this  bill,  perhaps  none  is  more  flagrant  than  the  charge  that  it  proposes  to  legislate 
slavery  into  Kansas  and  Nebraska.  Sir,  if  the  bill  contained  such  a  future  It  wonU  uct 

9* 


202  1HE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

receive  my  vote.    The  right  to  establish  involves  the  correlative  right  to  prohibit,  and 

denying  both  I  would  vote  for  neither 

"The  effect  of  the  repeal,  (of  the  Missouri  Compromise,)  therefore,  is  neither  to  estab 
lish  nor  to  exclude,  but  to  leave  the  future  condition  of  the  Territories  dependent  wholly 
upon  the  action  of  the  inhabitants,  subject  only  to  such  limitations  as  the  federal  Con 
stitution  may  impose It  will  be  observed  that  the  right  of  the 

people  to  regulate  in  their  own  way  all  their  domestic  institutions  is  left  wholly  untouched, 
except  that  whatever  is  done  must  be  done  in  accordance  with  the  Constitution — the 
supreme  law  for  us  all." 

Again,  at  Lexington,  Kentucky,  on  the  9th  of  June,  1856,  in  response 
to  the  congratulations  of  his  neighbors  on  his  nomination  for  the  Vice- 
Presidency,  Mr.  Breckinridge  eaid : 

"  The  whole  power  of  the  Democratic  organization  is  pledged  to  the  following  proposi 
tions  :  That  Congress  shall  not  interpose  upon  this  subject  (slavery)  in  the  States,  in  the 
Territories,  or  in  the  District  of  Columbia;  that  the  people  of  each  Territory  shall  deter 
mine  the  question  for  themselves,  and  be  admitted  into  the  Union  upon  a  footing  of 
perfect  equality  with  the  original  States,  without  discrimination  on  account  of  the  allow 
ance  or  prohibition  of  slavery." 

Touching  the  power  of  the  Territorial  legislature  over  the  subject  of 
slavery,  the  Hon.  James  L.  Orr,  late  speaker  of  the  House  of  Represent** 
fives,  on  the  llth  of  December,  1856,  said: 

"  Now,  the  legislative  authority  of  a  Territory  is  invested  with  a  discretion  to  vote  for 
or  against  the  laws.  We  think  they  ought  to  pass  laws  in  every  Territory,  when  the  Ter 
ritory  is  open  to  settlement  and  slaveholders  go  there,  to  protect  slave  property.  But  if 
they  decline  to  pass  such  law,  what  is  the  remedy  ?  None,  sir,  if  the  majority  of  the 
people  are  opposed  to  the  institution  ;  and  if  they  do  not  desire  it  ingrafted  upon  their 
Territory,  all  they  have  to  do  is  simply  to  decline  to  pass  laws  in  the  Territorial  legis 
lature  for  its  protection,  and  then  it  is  as  well  excluded  as  if  the  power  was  invested  in 
the  Territorial  legislature  to  prohibit  it." 

Mr.  Stephens,  of  Georgia,  in  a  speech  in  the  House  of  Representatives 
on  the  17th  of  February,  1854,  said: 

"  The  whole  question  of  slavery  was  to  be  left  to  the  people  of  the  Territories,  whether 
north  or  south  of  36°  80',  or  any  other  line 

"  It  was  based  upon  the  truly  republican  and  national  policy  of  taking  this  disturbing 
element  out  of  Congress  and  leaving  the  whole  question  of  slavery  in  the  Territories  to 
the  people  there  to  settle  it  for  themselves.  And  it  is  in  vindication  of  that  new  prin 
ciple—then  established  for  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  our  government— in  the  year 
1850,  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century,  that  we,  the  friends  of  the  Nebraska  Bill, 
whether  from  the  North  or  South,  now  call  upon  this  house  and  the  country  to  carry  out 
in  good  faith,  and  give  effect  to  the  spirit  and  intent  of  those  important  measures  of  Ter 
ritorial  legislation." 


STEPHEN      A.     DOUGLAS.  203 

Again,  on  the  17th  of  January,  1856,  lie  said: 

"  I  am  willing  that  the  Territorial  legislature  may  act  upon  the  subject  when  and  how 
they  may  think  proper." 

Mr.  Benjamin,  of  Louisiana,  in  a  speech  in  the  Senate  on  the  25th  of 
May,  1854,  on  the  Nebraska  Bill,  said  : 

"  We  find,  then,  that  this  principle  of  the  independence  and  self-government  of  the 
people  in  the  distant  Territories  of  the  confederacy  harmonizes  all  these  conflicting 
opinions,  and  enables  us  to  banish  from  the  halls  of  Congress  another  fertile  source  of 
content  and  excitement." 

On  February  15,  1854,  Mr.  Badger,  of  North  Carolina,  said  of  the 
Kansas-Nebraska  Bill : 

"  It  submits  the  whole  authority  to  the  Territory  to  determine  for  itself.  That  in  my 
judgment,  is  the  place  where  it  ought  to  be  put.  If  the  people  of  the  Territories  choose 
to  exclude  slavery,  so  far  from  considering  it  as  a  wrong  done  to  me  or  to  my  consti 
tuents,  I  shall  not  complain  of  it.  It  is  their  business." 

Again,  on  March  2,  1854,  one  day  before  the  passage  of  the  bill  through 
the  Senate,  Mr.  Badger  said: 

"  But  with  regard  to  that  question  we  have  agreed — some  of  us  because  we  thought  it 
the  only  right  mode,  anjl  some  because  we  think  it  a  right  mode,  and  under  existing  cir 
cumstances  the  preferable  mode — to  confer  this  power  upon  the  people  of  the  Territories." 

On  the  same  day  Mr.  Butler,  of  South  Carolina,  said  : 

"  Now,  I  believe  that  under  the  provisions  of  this  bill,  and  of  the  Utah  and  New  Mexico 
bills,  there  will  be  a  perfect  carte  blanche  given  to  the  Territorial  legislature  to  legislate 

as  they  may  think  proper I  am  willing  to  trust  them.     I   have  been 

willing  to  trust  them  in  Utah  and  New  Mexico,  where  the  Mexican  law  prevailed,  and  I 
am  willing  to  trust  them  in  Nebraska  and  Kansas,  where  the  French  law,  according  to 
the  idea  of  the  gentleman,  may  possibly  be  revived." 

In  the  House  of  Representatives,  June  25,  1856,  Mr.  Samuel  A.  Smith, 
Tennessee,  said  : 

"For  twenty  years  this  question  had  agitated  Congress  and  the  country  without  a 
single  beneficial  result.  They  resolved  that  it  should  be  transferred  from  these  halls, 
that  all  unconstitutional  restrictions  should  be  removed,  and  that  the  people  should  de 
termine  for  themselves  the  character  of  their  local  and  domestic  institutions  under  which 
they  were  to  live,  with  precisely  the  same  rights,  but  no  greater  than  those  which  were 
enjoyed  by  the  old  thirteen  States." 

And  further ; 

"  In  18M,  the  same  question  was  presented,  when  the  necessity 'arose  for  the  organiza- 


204       THE  LIFE  AND  SPEECHES  OF 

tion  of  the  Territories  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska,  and  the  identical  principle  was  applied 
for  its  solution." 

In  the  Senate,  on  the  25th  of  February,  1854,  Mr.  Dodge,  of  Iowa  (now 
Democratic  candidate  for  governor  of  that  State),  said  : 

"  And,  sir,  honesty  and  consistency  with  our  course  in  1850  demand  that  those  of  «3 
who  supported  the  Compromise  measures  should  zealously  support  this  bill,  because  it 
is  a  return  to  the  sound  principle  of  leaving  to  the  people  of  the  Territories  the  right  of 
determining  for  themselves  their  domestic  institutions." 

And  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  December  28,  1855,  Mr.  George 
W.  Jones,  of  Tennessee,  said  : 

"  Then,  sir,  you  may  call  it  by  what  name  you  please— non-intervention,  squatter 
sovereignty,  or  popular  sovereignty.  It  is,  sir,  the  power  of  the  people  to  govern  them 
selves,  and  they,  and  they  alone,  should  exercise  it,  in  my  opinion,  as  well  while  in  a 
Territorial  condition  as  in  the  position  of  a  State." 

And  again,  in  the  same  speech,  he  said  : 

"  I  believe  that  the  great  principle — the  right  of  the  people  in  the  Territories,  as  well 
as  in  the  States,  to  form  and  regulate  their  own  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way — 
is  clearly  and  unequivocally  embodied  in  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act,  and  if  it  is  not,  it 
should  have  been.  Believing  that  it  was  the  living,  vital  principle  of  the  act,  I  voted  for 
it.  These  are  my  views,  honestly  entertained,  and  will  be  defended." 

I  could  fill  you  columns  with  extracts  of  speeches  of  senators  and  repre 
sentatives  from  the  Xorth  and  the  South  who  voted  for  the  Kansas-Xebraska 
Bill  and  supported  Mr.  Buchanan  for  the  Presidency  on  that  distinct  issue  ; 
thus  showing  conclusively  that  it  was  the  general  understanding  at  the  time 
that  the  people  of  the  Territories,  while  they  remained  in  a  Territorial  con 
dition,  were  left  perfectly  free,  under  the  Kansas-Xebraska  Act,  to  form  and 
regulate  all  their  domestic  institutions,  slavery  not  excepted,  in  their  own 
way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  This  is  the 
doctrine  of  which  Mr.  Gwin  spoke  when  he  said  : 

"  To  contend  for  the  power— and  a  sovereign  power  it  is— of  a  Territorial  legislature  to 
exclude  by  non-action  or  hostile  legislation  is  pregnant  with  the  mischiefs  of  never- 
ending  agitation,  of  civil  discord,  and  bloody  wars. 

"  It  is  an  absurd,  monstrous,  and  dangerous  theory,  which  demands  denunciation  from 
every  patriot  in  the  land  ;  and  a  profound  sense  of  my  duty  to  you  would  not  permit  me 
to  do  less  than  to  offer  this  brief  statement  of  my  views  upon  a  question  so  vital  to  the 
welfare  of  our  common  country." 

Why  did  not  the  same  "  profound  sense  of  duty  "  to  the  people  of  Cali 
fornia  require  Mr.  Gwin  to  denounce  this  "  absurd,  monstrous,  and  dan 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  205 

gerous  theory  when  pronounced  and  enforced  by  General  Cass,  in  support 
of  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850,  and  thence  repeated  by  that  eminent 
statesman  at  each  session  of  Congress  until  1857,  when  Mr.  Gwin  voted  for 
his  confirmation  as  secretary  of  state  ?  Why  did  not  Mr.  Gwin  obey  the 
same  sense  of  duty  by  denouncing  James  Buchanan  as  the  Democratic 
candidate  for  the  Presidency,  when  he  declared,  in  1856,  that  "the 
people  of  a  Territory,  like  those  of  a  State,  shall  decide  for  themselves 
whether  slavery  shall  or  shall  not  exist  within  their  limits  ?"  Why  did  he 
not  perform  this  imperative  duty  by  voting  against  Mr.  Cobb,  who  made 
northern  votes  for  Mr.  Buchanan  by  advocating  this  same  "absurd, 
monstrous  and  dangerous  theory  of  'non-action'  and  'unfriendly  legisla 
tion '"when  he  was  appointed  secretary  of  the  treasury?  And,  in  short, 
why  did  he  not  prove  his  fidelity  to  a  high  sense  of  duty  by  protesting 
against  my  selection  as  chairman  of  the  Senate's  Committee  on  Territories 
in  the  Democratic  caucus  by  a  unanimous  vote,  at  every  session  that  he 
has  been  a  senator,  from  1850  to  1858,  with  a  full  knowledge  of  my 
opinions?  The  inference  is,  that  Mr.  Gwin,  from  his  remarks  on  the 
"  Dred  Scott  decision,"  is  prepared  to  offer  it  as  an  excuse  for  the  disregard 
for*so  many  years  of  that  profo-und  sense  of  duty  which  he  owed  to  the 
people  of  California.  It  may  be  that  before  the  decision  his  mind  was  not 
clear  as  to  the  souse  of  duty  which  now  moves  him.  Of  that  decision  he 
said  : 

"  In  March,  1857,  the  Supreme  Court  decided  this  question,  in  all  its  various  relations, 
in  the  case  of  Dred  Scott.  That  decision  declares  that  neither  Congress  nor  a  Territorial 
legislature  possesses  the  power  either  to  establish  or  to  exclude  slavery  from  the  Territory, 
and  that  it  was  a  power  which  exclusively  belonged  to  the  States  ;  that  the  people  of  a 
Territory  can  exercise  this  power  for  the  first  time  when  they  form  a  constitution  ;  that 
the  right  of  the  people  of  any  State  to  carry  their  slaves  into  a  common  Territory  of  the 
United  States,  and  hold  them  there  during  its  existence  as  such,  was  guaranteed  by  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States ;  that  it  was  a  right  which  could  neither  be  subverted 
nor  evaded,  either  by  non-action,  by  direct  or  indirect  Congressional  legislation,  or  by 
any  law  passed  by  a  Territorial  legislature." 

Surely  Mr.  Gwin  had  never  read  the  opinion  of  the  Court  in  the  case  of 
"  Dred  Scott,"  except  as  it  had  been  perverted  for  partisan  purposes  by 
newspapers,  when  he  undertook  to  expound  it  to  the  good  people  of  Cali 
fornia. 

It  «o  happens  that  the  court  did  not  decide  any  one  of  the  propositions 
so  boldly  and  emphatically  stated  in  the  "  Grass  Valley  "  speech ! 

The  court  did  not  declare  that  "  neither  Congress  nar  a  Territorial  le 
gislature  possessed  the  power  either  to  establish  or  exclude  slavery  from  a 


206  THE     LIFE     AND      SPEECHES     OF 

Territory,  and  that  it  was  a  power  which  exclusively  belonged  to  the 
States." 

The  court  did  not  declare  "  that  the  people  of  a  Territory  can  exercise 
this  power  for  the  first  time  when  they  come  to  form  a  constitution. 

The  court  did  not  declare  "  that  the  right  of  the  people  in  any  State  to 
carry  their  slaves  into  a  common  Territory  of  the  United  States,  and  hold 
them  there  during  its  existence  as  such,  was  guaranteed  by  the  Constitu 
tion  of  the  United  States." 

The  court  did  not  declare  "  that  it  was  a  right  which  could  neither  be 
subverted  nor  evaded,  either  by  non-action,  by  direct  or  indirect  Con 
gressional  legislation,  or  by  any  law  passed  by  a  Territorial  legislature." 

Neither  the  decision  nor  the  opinion  of  the  court  affirms  any  one  of  those 
propositions,  either  in  express  terms  or  by  fair  legal  iritendment. 

This  version  of  the  "Dred  Scott  Decision  "  had  its  origin  in  the  unfor 
tunate  Lecomptou  controversy,  and  is  one  of  the  many  political  heresies  to 
which  it  gave  birth. 

PROTECTION   TO    AMERICAN    CITIZENS    ABROAD. 

On  the  18th  of  February,  1859,  President  Buchanan  had  sent 
to  Congress  a  special  message,  in  which  he  urged  the  neces 
sity  of  passing  "  a  law  conferring  upon  the  President  of  the 
United  States  the  authority  to  employ  a  sufficient  military  or 
naval  force,  whenever  it  might  be  necessary  to  do  so,  for  the 
protection  of  American  citizens  when  out  of  the  immediate 
jurisdiction  of  the  United  States.  Mr.  Douglas  spoke  in 
favor  of  such  a  law,  and  said :  "  I  think  sir,  that  the  Presi 
dent  of  the  United  States  ought  to  have  the  power  to  re 
dress  sudden  injuries  upon  our  citizens,  or  outrages  upon  our 
flag,  without  waiting  for  the  action  of  Congress.  The  Ex 
ecutive  of  every  other  powerful  nation  on  earth  has  that 
authority.  Our  merchants  are  now  being  driven  out  of  the 
trade  in  the  Mexican  and  South  American  ports,  for  the  Avant 
of  authority  in  the  Executive  to  demand  and  enforce  instant 
redress  the  moment  the  outrage  is  perpetrated.  I  go  fur 
ther,  sir ;  I  would  intrust  the  Executive  with  the  authority, 
when  an  outrage  is  perpetrated  upon  our  ships  or  commerce, 


STEPHEN     A .     DOUGLAS.  207 

to  punish  it  instantly.  I  desire  the  President  of  the  United 
States  to  have  as  much  authority  to  protect  American  citi 
zens,  American  property,  and  the  American  flag,  abroad,  as 
the  Executive  of  every  other  civilized  nation  on  earth  pos 
sesses." 

SLAVE   PROPERTY   IX   THE  TERRITORIES. 

On  the  23d  of  February,  in  a  debate  on  the  Legislative 
Appropriation  Bill,  Mr.  Brown,  of  Mississippi,  made  a  speech 
in  the  Senate,  insisting  on  a  code  of  laws  protecting  slavery 
in  the  Territories.  Admitting  that,  if  the  people  of  the  Terri 
tories  did  not  want  negroes,  they  could  lawfully  legislate 
so  as  to  accomplish  their  purpose,  he  assumed  that  it  was  the 
right  and  duty  of  Congress  to  enact  laws  to  sustain  it  against 
the  popular  will.  Taking  Mr.  Douglas'  position  on  the 
question  (as  he  said)  for  granted,  Mr.  Brown  declared  that 
he  wished  to  hear  from  other  Democratic  senators  from  the 
free  States,  and  to  know  whether  they  would  vote  to  protect 
the  rights  of  slaveholders  in  the  Territories.  ISTo  one  rising 
for  several  minutes  after,  Mr.  Brown  concluded  his  remarks, 
and  the  Senate  being  about  to  proceed  to  the  consideration 
of  other  subjects,  Mr.  Douglas  arose  and  observed  that  if  no 
other  northern  Democratic  senator  desired  to  be  heard  on  the 
points  presented  by  the  senator  from  Mississippi,  he  craved 
the  attention  of  the  Senate  for  a  while.  He  thanked  Mr. 
Brown  for  taking  his  position  for  granted  on  the  question  pre 
sented  to  the  other  northern  Democrats.  He  had  yet  to  know 
that  there  was  one  Democrat  in  the  free  States  who  would 
vote  to  protect  slavery  in  the  Territories  by  Congressional 
enactment  against  the  popular  decision.  In  this  speech  he  shows 
that  all  property  in  the  Territories,  including  slaves,  is,  and 
must  be,  subject  to  the  local  law  of  the  Territorial  legislature: 
that  the  Territorial  legislature  has  the  same  power  over 
slaves  in  the  Territory,  as  it  has  over  all  other  property ;  and 


208      THE  LIFE  AND  SPEECHES  OF 

no  more :  he  explains  his  Freeport  speech  ;  reminds  the  Sen 
ate  that  his  past  record  shows  that  he  would  never  vote  for 
a  Congressional  slave  code  for  the  Territories ;  shows  tho 
absurdity  of  such  a  code  ;  and  demonstrates  that  if  the  peo 
ple  of  a  Territory  want  slavery  there,  they  will  enact  laws  for 
its  protection :  he  shows  that  it  was  the  intent  of  the  Ne 
braska  Bill  to  confer  on  the  Territorial  legislature  all  the 
power  that  Congress  possessed  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  to 
let  them  wield  it  as  the  people  of  the  Territory  chose :  he 
elucidates  the  truly  equitable  and  just  provisions  of  that  bill, 
and  shows  that  it  expressly  forbids  the  enactment  of  a  Con 
gressional  slave  code  for  the  Territories. 
In  the  course  of  his  remarks  he  said  : 

The  senator  from  Mississippi  and  myself  agree  that  under  the  de 
cision  of  the  Supreme  Court,  slaves  are  property,  standing  on  an 
equal  footing  with  all  other  property ;  arid  that  consequently,  the 
owner  of  slaves  has  the  same  right  to  carry  his  slave  with  him  to  a 
Territory,  as  the  owner  of  any  other  species  of  property  has  to  carry 
Ms  property  there.  The  right  of  transit  to  and  from  the  Territories 
is  the  same  for  one  species  of  property  as  it  is  for  all  others.  Thus 
far  the  senator  from  Mississippi  and  myself  agree — that  slave  pro 
perty  in  the  Territories  stands  on  an  equal  footing  with  every  other 
species  of  property.  Now,  the  question  arises,  to  what  extent  is  pro 
perty,  slaves  included,  subject  to  the  local  law  of  the  Territory  ? 
Whatever  power  the  Territorial  legislature  has  over  other  species 
of  property,  extends,  in  my  judgment,  to  the  same  extent,  and  in  like 
manner,  to  slave  property.  The  Territorial  legislature  has  the- 
same  power  to  legislate  in  respect  to  slaves,  that  it  has  in  regard  to 
any  other  property,  to  the  same  extent,  and  no  further.  If  the  sena 
tor  wishes  to  know  what  power  it  has  over  slaves  in  the  Territories, 
I  answer,  let  him  tell  me  what  power  it  has  to  legislate  over  every 
other  species  of  property,  either  by  encouragement  or  by  taxation,  or 
in  any  other  mode,  and  he  has  my  answer  in  regard  to  slave  property. 

But  the  senator  says  that  there  is  something  peculiar  in  slave  pro 
perty,  requiring  further  protection  than  other  species  of  property. 
If  so,  it  is  the  misfortune  of  those  who  own  that  species  of  property. 
He  tells  us  that,  if  the  Territorial  legislature  fails  to  pass  a  slave 
code  for  the  Territories,  fails  to  pass  police  regulations  to  protect 
slave  property,  the  absence  of  such  legislation  practically  excludes 
slave  property  as  effectually  as  a  constitutional  prohibition  would 
exclude  it.  I  agree  to  that  proposition.  He  says,  furthermore,  that 
it  is  competent  for  the  Territorial  legislature,  by  the  exercise  of  the 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  209 

taxing  power,  and  other  functions  within  the  limits  of  the  Constitu 
tion,  to  adopt  unfriendly  legislation  which  practically  drives  slavery 
out  of  the  Territory.  I  agree  to  that  proposition.  That  is  just  what 
I  said,  and  all  I  said,  and  just  what  I  meant  by  my  Freeport  speech 
in  Illinois,  upon  which  there  has  been  so  much  comment  throughout 

the  country. 

******** 

The  senator  from  Mississippi  says  they  ought  to  pass  such  a  code  ; 
but  he  admits  that  it  is  immaterial  to  inquire  whether  they  ought  or 
ought  not  to  do  it;,  for  if  they  do  not  want  it,  they  will  not  enact 
it ;  and  if  they  do  not  do  it,  there  is  no  mode  by  which  you  can  com 
pel  them  to  do  it.  He  admits  there  is  no  compulsory  means  by 
which  you  can  coerce  the  Territorial  legislature  to  pass  such  a  law ; 
and  for  that  reason  he  insists  that,  in  case  of  non-action  by  the  Ter 
ritorial  legislature,  it  is  the  right  and  duty  of  southern  senators  and 
representatives  to  demand  affirmative  action  by  Congress  in  the  en 
actment  of  a  slave  code  for  the  Territories.  He  says  that  it  is  not 
necessary  to  put  the  question  to  me,  whether  I  would  vote  for  a  Con 
gressional  slave  code.  He  desire  to  know  of  all  other  northern  De 
mocrats  what  they  will  do  ;  he  does  not  wish  an  answer  from  me. 
1  am  much  obliged  to  him  for  taking  it  for  granted,  from  my  past 
record,  that  I  never  would  vote  for  a  slave  code  in  the  Territories  by 
Congress  ;  and  I  have  yet  to  learn  that  there  is  a  man  in  a  free  State 
of  this  Union,  of  any  party,  who  would. 

The  senator  from  Mississippi  defined  it  very  well  in  his  speech. 
His  position  was,  that  while  the  Constitution  gave  him  the  right  of 
protection  in  a  Territory  for  his  slave  property,  it  did  not,  of  it 
self,  furnish  adequate  protection.  He  drew  a  distinction  between 
the  right  and  the  fact,  and  said  that  the  protection  could  only  be 
furnished  by  legislation ;  that  legislation  could  only  come  from  one 
of  two  sources — the  Territorial  legislature  or  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States.  He  would  look  to  the  Territorial  legislature  in 
the  first  instance.  If  he  got  adequate  legislation  there,  he  was  con 
tent;  but  if  the  Territorial  legislature  failed  to  act,  and  give  him 
that  adequate  legislation,  in  the  form  of  what  is  commonly  called  a 
slave  code,  such  non-action  was  equivalent  to  a  denial  of  his  rights ; 
and,  losing  his  rights,  it  was  no  consolation  to  him  that  he  had  been 
deprived  of  them  by  the  non-action  of  a  Territorial  legislature  ; 
and  hence  he  would  demand  of  Congress  the  passage  of  laws  to 
protect  his  slaves,  and  to  punish  men  for  running  them  off;  to  fur 
nish  such  remedies  for  the  violation  of  his  rights  as  he  thought  he 
was  entitled  to  from  the  Territorial  legislature.  He  said  he  would 
demand  this  from  Congress.  He  further  said  that  he  would  base 
his  demand  on  Congress  to  pass  this  slave  code  on  the  ground  that 
the  Territorial  legislature  was  the  creature  of  Congress;  and,  if  it 
did  not  do  its  duty,  Congress  should  pass  such  laws  as  were  neces 
sary  to  protect  slave  property  in  the  Territories. 

.All  1  have  to  say,  on  the  point  presented  by  the  senator  from  Mis- 


210  THE     LIFE     AND      SPEECHES     OF 

souri,  is  this :  while  our  Constitution  does  not  provide  remedies  for 
stealing  negroes,  it  does  not  provide  remedies  for  stealing  dry-goods, 
or  horses,  or  any  other  species  of  property.  You  cannot  protect  any 
property  in  the  Territories,  without  laws  furnishing  remedies  for  its 
violation,  and  penalties  for  its  abuse.  Nobody  pretends  that  you  are 
?oing  to  pass  laws  of  Congress  making  a  criminal  code  for  the  Terri 
tories,  with  reference  to  other  species  of  property.  The  Congress  of 
the  United  States  never  yet  passed  an  act  creating  a  criminal  code  for 
any  organized  Territory.  Jt  simply  organizes  the  Territory,  and 
leaves  its  legislature  to  make  its  own  criminal  code.  Congress  never 
passed  a  law  to  protect  any  species  of  property  in  the  organized  Ter 
ritories  ;  it  leaves  its  protection  to  the  Territorial  Legislatures.  The 
question  is,  whether  we  shall  make  an  exception  as  to  slavery  ?  The 
Supreme  Court  makes  no  such  distinction.  It  recognizes  slaves  as 
property.  "When  they  are  taken  to  a  Territory,  they  are  on  an  equal 
footing  with  other  property,  and  dependent  upon  the  same  system  of 
legislation,  for  protection,  as  other  property.  While  all  other  pro 
perty  is  dependent  on  the  Territorial  legislation  for  protection,  I  hold 
that  slave  property  must  look  to  the  same  authority  for  its  pro 
tection. 

SLAVERY  DEPENDENT  ON  THE  LOCAL  LAW. 

I  leave  all  kinds  of  property,  slaves  included,  to  the  local  law  for 
protection  ;  and  I  will  not  exert  the  power  of  Congress  to  inter 
fere  with  that  local  law  with  reference  to  slave  property,  or  any  other 
kind  of  property.  If  the  people  think  that  particular  laws  on  the 
subject  of  property  are  beneficial  to  their  interests,  they  will  enact 
them.  If  they  do  not  think  such  laws  are  wise,  they  will  refrain 
from  enacting  them.  They  will  protect  slaves  there,  provided  they 
want  slavery ;  and  they  will  want  slavery,  if  the  climate  be  such  that 
the  white  man  cannot  cultivate  the  soil,  so  as  to  render  negro  com 
pulsory  labor  necessary.  Hence,  it  becomes  a  question  of  climate,  of 
production,  of  self-interest,  and  not  a  question  of  legislation,  whether 
slavery  shall,  or  shall  not  exist  there. 

But  the  senator  from  Mississippi  says  he  has  a  right  to  protection. 
The  owner  of  every  other  species  of  property  may  say  he  lias  a  right 
to  protection.  The  man  dealing  in  liquors  may  think  that,  inasmuch 
as  his  stock  of  liquors  is  property,  he  has  a  right  to  protection.  The 
man  dealing  in  an  inferior  breed  of  cattle,  may  think  he  has  a  right 
to  protection;  but 'the  people  of  the  Territory  may  think  it  is  their 
interest  to  improve  the  breed  of  stock  by  discrimination  against  infe 
rior  breeds;  and  hence  they  may  fix  a  higher  rate  of  taxation  on  the 
one  than  on  the  other. 

I  am  willing  to  test  this  question  by  the  illustration  the  senator 
presents  of  a  Maine  liquor  law.  I  shall  not  stop  to  inquire  whether 
the  Maine  liquor  law  is  constitutional  or  not;  first,  because  Congress 
hi- not  the  tribunal  to  decide  it;  and  secondly,  because,  by  the  platform 


STEPHEN^    A.     DOUGLAS.  211 

to  which  the  senator  from  Mississippi  and  myself  both  stand  pledged 
as  the  rule  for  our  political  action,  it  is  provided  that  that  question 
shall  be  sent  to  the  court  to  test  the  constitutionality  of  the  law,  and 
we  shall  not  come  to  Congress  to  repeal  the  law.  When  the  Ne 
braska  Bill  was  first  pending  in  the  Senate,  it  contained  the  old  clause 
that  the  Territorial  laws  should  be  sent  here,  and,  if  disapproved  by 
Congress,  should  be  void.  The  discussion  proceeded  on  the  basis 
that  we  were  conferring  the  whole  power  of  legislation  on  the  Terri 
tory,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  with  the 
right  in  the  Territorial  legislature  u  to  form  and  regulate  their  domes 
tic  institutions  in  their  OAvn  way ;"  and  that  if  any  man  was  aggrieved 
by  such  legislation,  he  should  have  a  right  to  appeal  to  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  to  test  its  validity,  but  should  not  come 
to  Congress  to  repeal  the  obnpxious  law.  When  that  argument  was 
made,  a  distinguished  senator  from  Ohio,  not  now  here  (Mr.  Chase), 
asked  us  why  we  kept  that  clause  in  the  bill  requiring  the  laws  of  the 
Territory  to  be  sent  here  for  approval  or  disapproval.  We  could  not 
answer  the  inquiry,  and  hence  we  struck  out  the  provision  requiring 
the  Territorial  laws  to  be  sent  here  for  approval  or  disapproval,  upon 
the  avowed  ground,  at  the  time,  that  the  Territorial  legislature  might 
pass  just  such  laws  as  they  wanted,  with  the  right  of  appeal  by  any 
one  aggrieved  to  the  Supreme  Court  to  test  their  constitutionality, 
but  not  to  Congress  to  annul  them.  I  undertake  to  say  that  this  was 
the  distinct  understanding  among  the  northern  and  southern  Demo 
crats  at  that  time,  and  among  all  the  friends  of  the  Kansas  Nebraska 
Bill.  It  was  agreed,  that  while  we  might  differ  as  to  the  extent  of 
the  power  of  the  Territorial  legislature  on  these  questions,  we  would 
make  a  full  grant  of  legislative  authority  to  the  legislature  of  the 
Territory,  with  the  right  to  pass  such  laws  as  they  chose,  and  the 
right  of  anybody  to  appeal  to  the  court  to  decide  upon  the  validity 
and  constitutionality  of  such  laws,  but  not  to  come  to  Congress  for 
their  annulment.  Hence,  if  the  Territorial  legislature  should  pass 
the  Maine  liquor  law,  and  anybody  was  dissatisfied  with  the  provi 
sions  of  that  act,  and  thought  it  violated  his  constitutional  right,  he 
could  not  come  to  Congress  for  its  annulment,  but  could  appeal  to 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States ;  and  if  that  court  decided 
the  law  to  be  constitutional,  it  must  stand,  no  matter  how  obnoxious 
it  might  be  to  any  portion  of  the  American  people.  If  it  was  uncon 
stitutional,  it  became  void  without  any  interference  by  Congress,  or 
any  other  legislative  body.  The  Kansas  Nebraska  Bill  was  thus 
amended  for  the  avowed  purpose,  at  the  time,  of  striking  out  the 
appeal  to  Congress,  and  substituting  the  appeal  to  the  court. 


SUPREME    COURT     TO     SETTLE    DIFFERENCES     OF     OPINION     ON 
TERRITORIAL   POWER. 

After  we  had  gone  that  far,  a  senator  from  New   Hampshire 


212       THE  LIFE  AND  SPEECHES  OF 

pointed  out  in  the  Nebraska  Bill  tlio  fact,  that  no  appeal  could  b* 
taken  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  unless  the  amount 
of  property  in  controversy  was  $2,000  in  value,  and  hence  that  a 
negro  could  not  appeal  for  his  freedom,  nor  could  the  owner  of  a 
single  skive  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court  to  establish  his  title,  it'  he 
thought  that  his  rights  were  violated.  In  order  to  obviate  that  ob 
jection,  we  amended  the  bill  by  providing  that  where  the  title  to 
property  in  slaves,  or  any  question  of  personal  freedom  was  the  point 
in  issue,  the  right  of  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court  should  exist  with 
out  reference  to  the  amount  in  controversy. 

Thus  the  Kansas  Nebraska  Bill  stood,  granting  all  rightful  power 
of  legislation  on  all  subjects  whatsoever  to  the  Territorial  legislature, 
subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  provided  they 
should  not  pass  any  law  taxing  the  property  of  non-residents  higher 
than  that  of  residents,  nor  any  law  interfering  with  the  primary  dis 
position  of  the  soil,  nor  impose  any  tax  on  the  property  of  the  United 
States;  but  there  was  no  exception  made  as  to  slavery.  The  intent 
was  to  confer  on  the  Territorial  legislature  all  the  power  we  had  on 
the  subject  of  slavery,  to  let  them  wield  it  for  or  against  slavery 
as  the  people  of  the  Territory  chose;  and  the  understanding 
was,  that  we  would  abide  by  whatever  laws  they  might  make,  pro 
vided  they  did  not  violate  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States; 
and  the  Supreme  Court  was  the  only  tribunal  that  could  decide  that 
quest  ion. 

STANDS    BY   THE   NEBRASKA    BILL. 

Now,  sir,  I  stand  on  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Bill  as  it  was  expounded 
find  understood  at  the  time,  with  this  full  power  in  the  Territorial 
legislature,  with  the  right  of  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court  to  test 
the  validity  of  its  laws,  and  no  right  whatever  to  appeal  to  Congress 
to  repeal  them  in  the  event  of  our  not  liking  them.  I  am  ready  to 
answer  the  inquiry  of  the  senator  from  Mississippi,  whether,  if  I 
believed  the  Maine  liquor  law  to  be  unconstitutional  and  wrong, 
and  if  a  Territorial  legislature  should  pass  it,  I  would  vote  here  to 
annul  it?  I  tell  him  no.  If  the  people  of  Kansas  want  a  Maine 
liquor  law,  let  them  have  it.  If  they  do  not  want  it,  let  them 
refuse  to  pass  it.  If  they  do  pass  it,  and  any  citizen  thinks  that 
law  violates  the  Constitution,  let  him  make  a  case  and  appeal  to 
the  Supreme  Court.  If  the  court  sustains  his  objection,  the  law  is 
void.  If  it  overrules  the  objection,  the  decision  must  stand  until 
the  people,  who  alone  are  to  be  affected  by  it,  who  alone  have  an 
interest  in  it,  may  choose  to  repeal  it.  So  I  say  with  reference  to 
slavery.  Let  the  Territorial  legislature  pass  just  such  laws  in  regard 
to  slavery  as  they  think  they  have  a  right  to  enact  under  the  Consti 
tution  of  the  United  States.  If  I  do  not  like  those  laws,  I  will  not 
vote  to  repeal  them  ;  if  you  do  not  like  them,  you  must  not  vote  tu 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  213 

repeal  them ;  but  anybody  aggrieved  may  appeal  to  the  Supreme 
Court,  and  if  they  are  constitutional,  they  must  stand  ;  if  they  are 
unconstitutional,  they  are  void.  That  was  the  doctrine  of  non-inter 
vention,  as  it  was  understood  at  the  time  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Bill 
was  passed.  That  is  the  way  it  was  explained  and  argued  in  the 
Senate,  and  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  before  the  country. 
It  was  distinctly  understood  that  Congress  was  never  to  intervene  for 
or  against  slavery,  or  for  or  against  any  other  institution  in  the  Ter 
ritories;  but  leave  the  courts  to  decide  all  constitutional  questions  as 
they  might  arise,  and  the  President  to  carry  the  decrees  of  the  court 
into  effect;  and,  in  case  of  resistance  to  his  authority  in  executing 
the  judicial  process,  let  him  use,  if  necessary,  the  whole  military  force 
of  the  country,  as  provided  by  existing  laws. 


NON-INTERVENTION   A   DEMOCRATIC   SHIBBOLETH. 

I  know  that  some  gentlemen  do  not  like  the  doctrine  of  non-inter 
vention  as  well  as  they  once  did.  It  is  now  becoming  fashionable  to 
talk  sneeringly  of  "your  doctrine  of  .non-intervention."  Sir,  that 
doctrine  has  been  a  fundamental  article  in  the  Democratic  creed  for 
years.  It  has  been  repeated  over  and  over  again  in  every  national 
Democratic  platform — non-intervention  by  Congress  with  slavery  in 
the  States  and  Territories.  The  Nebraska  Bill  was  predicated  on 
that  idea — the  Territorial  legislature  to  have  jurisdiction  over  all 
rightful  subjects  of  legislation,  not  excepting  slavery,  with  no  appeal 
to  Congress,  but  a  right  to  appeal  to  the  courts  ;  and  the  legislation 
to  be  void,  if  the  Supreme  Court  said  it  was  unconstitutional ;  and 
valid,  no  matter  how  obnoxious,  if  ihe  court  said  it  was  constitu 
tional.  Let  me  call  attention  to  the  language  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska 
Bill.  Its  fourteenth  section  provides: 

"That  the  Constitution  and  all  laws  of  the  United  States,  which  are  not 
locally  inapplicable,  shall  have  the  same  force  and  effect  in  the  said  Territory 
of  Nebraska  as  elsewhere  within  the  United  States,  except  the  eighth  section 
of  the  act  'preparatory  to  the  admission  of  Missouri  into  the  Union,'  approved 
March  G,  1820,  which,  being  INCONSISTENT  WITH  THE  rKiNCirLE  OF  NON-INTERVEN 
TION  BY  CONGRESS  WITH  SLAVERY  in  the  States  AND  TERRITORIES,  as  recognized 
by  the  legislation  of  1850,  commonly  called  the  Compromise  measures,  is  IIEKEJ;Y 
DECLARED  INOPERATIVE  and  VOID;  it  being  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  this 
act  not  to  legislate  slavery  into  any  State  or  TERRITORY,  nor  to  exclude  it  there 
from,  but  to  leave  the  people  THEREOF  perfectly  FREE  TO  FORM  AND  REGULATE 

THEIR  DOMESTIC  INSTITUTIONS  IN  THEIR  OWN  WAY.  SUBJECT  ONLY  TO  THE  CONSTI 
TUTION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES." 

Thus,  in  the  Nebraska  Bill,  it  is  declared  that  a  Congressional  en 
actment  on  the  subject  of  slavery  was  inconsistent  with  the  principle 
of  non-intervention  by  Congress  with  slavery  in  the  States  and  Ter 
ritories.  This  same  article  of  faith  has  gone  into  the  various  Demo 
cratic  platforms,  and  especially  into  the  Cincinnati  platform.  Every 


214  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

Democrat,  therefore,  is  pledged,  by  his  platform  and  the  organization 
of  the  party,  against  any  legislation  of  Congress  in  the  Territories  for 
or  against  slavery,  no  matter  how  obnoxious  the  Territorial  legisla 
tion  may  be^  If  it  is  unconstitutional,  you  have  your  remedy  ;  go  to 
the  court  and  test  the  question.  If  it  is  constitutional,  you  agreed 
that  the  people  of  a  Territory  may  have  it.  J  hold  you  to  the  agree 
ment. 

The  whole  legislative  power  possessed  by  Congress  over  a  Territory 
was,  by  that  act,  conferred  on  the  Territorial  legislature.  There  were 
exceptions  on  three  points;  but  slavery  was  not  one  of  the  exceptions. 
I  say,  then,  the  intent  was  to  give  to  the  Territorial  legislature  all  the 
power  that  we  possessed  ;  all  that  could  be  given  under  the  Constitu 
tion  ;  and  the  understanding  was,  that  Congress  would  not  interfere 
with  whatever  legislation  they  might  enact. 

Now,  the  senator  from  Alabama  asks  me  whether  the  southern 
people,  under  the  Constitution,  have  not  the  right  to  carry  their 
slaves  there  ?  I  answer,  yes — the  same  right  that  you  have  to  carry 
any  other  property.  Then  you  ask,  have  they  not  a  right  to  hold  it 
there  when  they  get  it  there?  I  answer,  the  same  right  that  you 
have  to  hold  any  other  property,  subject  to  such  local  laws  as  the 
local  legislature  may  constitutionally  enact.  Can  you  hold  any  other 
property  without  law  to  protect  it?  No.  Then,  can  you  hold  slave 
property  without  law  to  protect  it?  No,  is  the  answer.  Then,  will 
Congress  pass  laws  to  protect  other  property  in  the  Territories  ?  I 
answer,  no.  We  have  created  Territorial  legislatures  for  that  pur 
pose.  We  agreed  that  this  government  should  not  violate  the  princi 
ples  of  our  Revolution,  by  making  laws  for  a  distant  people,  regulat 
ing  their  domestic  concerns  and  affecting  their  rights  of  property, 
without  giving  them  a  representation.  The  doctrine  that  Congress 
is  to  regulate  the  rights  of  person  and  property,  and  the  domestic 
concerns  of  a  Territory,  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Tories  of  the  Revolu 
tion.  It  is  the  doctrine  of  George  III.,  and  Lord  North,  his  minister. 
Our  fathers  then  said  that  they  would  not  consent  that  the  British 
parliament  should  pass  laws  touching  the  local  and  domestic  concerns 
of  the  colonies,  the  rights  of  person  and  property,  the  family  relations 
of  the  people  of  the  colonies,  without  their  consent.  The  parliament 
of  Great  Britain  said  they  had  the  power.  We  said  to  them,  "you 
may  have  the  power,  but  you  have  not  the  moral  right;  it  is  viola- 
tive  of  the  great  principles  of  civil  liberty  ;  violative  of  the  rights  of 
an  Englishman,  not  to  be  affected  in  his  property  without  his  consent 
is  given  through  his  representatives."  Because  Great  Britain  insisted 
on  exercising  that  identical  power  over  these  colonies,  our  lathers 
flew  to  arms,  asserted  the  doctrine  that  every  colony,  every  depen 
dency,  every  Territory,  had  a  right  in  its  own  domestic  legislature  to 
pass  just  such  laws  as  its  people  chose  touching  their  local  and  do 
mestic  concerns,  recognizing  the  right  of  the  imperial  parliament  to 
regulate  imperial  affairs,  as  I  do  the  right  of  Congress  to  regulate  the 
national  and  federal  concerns  of  the  people  of  a  Territory. 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  215 

Sir,  I  am  asserting,  on  behalf  the  people  of  the  Territories,  just 
those  rights  which  our  fathers  demanded  for  themselves  against  the 
claim  of  Great  Britain.  .Because  those  rights  were  not  granted  to 
our  fathers,  they  went  through  a  bloody  war  of  s-even  years.  Am  I 
now  to  be  called  upon  to  enforce  that  same  odious  doctrine  on  the 
people  of  a  Territory,  against  their  consent?  I  say,  no.  Organize  a 
Territorial  government  for  them ;  give  them  a  legislature,  to  be 
elected  by  their  own  people  ;  give  them  all  the  powers  of  legislation 
on  all  questions  of  a  local  and  domestic  character,  subject  only  to  the 
Constitution  ;  and  if  they  make  good  laws,  let  them  enjoy  their  bless 
ings;  and  if  they  make  bad  laws,  let  them  suffer  under  them  until 
they  repeal  them.  If  the  laws  are  unconstitutional,  let  those  aggrieved 
appeal  to  the  court — the  tribunal  created  by  the  Constitution  to  as 
certain  that  fact.  That  is  the  principle  on  which  we  stood  in 
1854.  It  was  on  that  principle  and  that  understanding  we  fought  the 
great  political  battle  and  gained  the  great  victory  of  1856.  How 
many  votes  do  you  think  Mr.  Buchanan  would  have  obtained  in  Penn 
sylvania  if  he  had  then  said  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  plants  slavery  in  all  the  Territories,  and  makes  it  the  duty  of 
the  Federal  Government  to  keep  it  there  and  maintain  it  at  the  point 
of  the  bayonet  and  by  federal  laws,  in  opposition  to  the  will  of  the 
people?  How  many  votes  would  he  have  received  in  Ohio,  or  any 
other  free  State,  on  such  a  platform  ?  Mr.  Buchanan  did  not  then 
understand  the  doctrines  of  popular  sovereignty  and  self-government 
in  that  way. 

I  assert  that  in  1856,  during  the  whole  of  that  campaign,  I  took 
the  same  position  I  do  now,  and  none  other ;  and  I  will  show  that 
Mr.  Buchanan  pledged  himself  to  the  same  doctrine  when  he  accepted 
the  nomination  of  the  Cincinnati  Convention.  In  his  letter  of  accept 
ance,  he  says,  referring  to  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act : 

"The  recent  legislation  of  Congress,  respecting  domestic  slavery,  derived, 
as  it  has  been,  from  the  original  and  pure  fountain  of  legitimate  political 
power,  the  will  of  the  majority,  promises  ere  long  to  allay  the  dangerous 
excitement.  This  legislation  is  founded  upon  principles  as  ancient  as  free 
government  itself,  and.  in  accordance  with  them,  has  simply  declared  that  the 
people  of  a  Territory,  like  those  of  a  State,  shall  decide  for  themselves  whether 
slavery  shall  or  shall  not  exist  within  their  limits." 

This  extract  from  Mr.  Buchanan's  letter,  shows  that  he  then  under 
stood  that  the  people  of  a  Territory,  like  those  of  a  State,  should 
decide  for  themselves  whether  slavery  should  or  should  not  exist 
within  their  limits.  I  undertake  to  say,  that  wherever  I  went  that 
year,  his  cause  was  advocated  on  that  principle,  as  laid  down  in  his 
letter  of  acceptance.'  The  people  of  the  North,  at  least,  certainly 
understood  him  to  hold  the  doctrine  of  self-government  in  Terri 
tories  as  well  as  in  States,  and  as  applicable  to  slave  property  as  well 
as  to  all  other  species  of  property.  I  undertake  to  say,  that  he 
would  not  have  carried  one-half  the  Democratic  vote  in  any  free 
State,  if  he  had  not  been  thus  understood ;  and  I  hope  my  friend 


216  THE     LIFE     AND     STEECIIES     OF 

from  Mississippi  had  no  allusion  to  this  letter,  when  he  said  that  in 
the  next  contest  he  did  not  desire  "  to  cheat  nor  be  cheated."  I  am 
glad  that  the  senator  from  Mississippi  means  to  have  a  clear,  unequi 
vocal,  specific  statement  of  our  principles,  so  that  there  shall  he  no 
cheating  on  either  side.  I  intend  to  use  language  which  can  be 
repeated  in  Chicago  as  well  as  in  New  Orleans,  in  Charleston  the 
same  as  in  Boston.  We  live  under  a  common  Constitution.  No 
political  creed  is  sound  or  safe  which  cannot  be  proclaimed  in  the 
same  sense  wherever  the  American  flag  waves  over  American  soil. 
If  the  North  and  the  South  cannot  come  to  a  common  ground  on  the 
slavery  question,  the  sooner  we  know  it  the  better.  The  Democracy 
of  the  North  hold,  at  least,  that  the  people  of  a  Territory  have  the 
same  right  to  legislate  in  respect  to  slavery,  as  to  all  other  property ; 
and  that,  practically,  it  results  in  this :  if  they  want  slavery,  they 
will  have  it;  and  if  they  do  not  want  it,  it  shall  not  be  forced  upon 
them  by  an  act  of  Congress.  The  senator  from  Mississippi  says  that 
doctrine  is  right,  unless  we  pass  an  act  of  Congress  compelling  the 
people  of  a  Territory  to  have  slavery  whether  they  want  it  or  not. 
The  point  he  wishes  to  arrive  at,  is  whether  we  are  for  or  against 
Congressional  intervention.  If  you  repudiate  the  doctrine  of  non 
intervention,  and  form  a  slave  code  by  act  of  Congress,  when  the 
people  of  a  Territory  refuse  it,  you  must  step  off  the  Democratic  plat 
form.  We  will  let  you  depart  in  peace,  as  you  no  longer  belong  to 
us ;  you  are  no  longer  of  us  when  you  adopt  the  principle  of  Con 
gressional  intervention,  in  violation  of  the  Democratic  creed.  I  stand 
here  defending  the  great  principle  of  non-intervention  by  Congress, 
and  self-government  by  the  people  of  the  Territories.  That  is  the 
Democratic  creed.  The  Democracy  in  the  northern  States  have  so 
understood  it.  No  northern  Democratic  State  ever  would  have 
voted  for  Mr.  Buchanan,  but  for  the  fact  that  he  was  understood  to 
occupy  that  position. 

Gentlemen  of  the  southern  States,  I  tell  you  in  all  candor  that  I 
do  not  believe  a  Democratic  candidate  can  ever  carry  any  one 
northern  Democratic  State  on  the  platform  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
Federal  Government  to  force  the  people  of  a  Territory  to  have  slavery 
when  they  do  not  want  it.  But  if  the  true  principles  of  State  rights 
and  popular  sovereignty  be  maintained  and  carried  out  in  good  faith, 
as  set  forth  in  the  Nebraska  Bill,  and  as  understood  by  the  people  in 
1856,  a  glorious  future  awaits  the  Democracy. 


STEPHEN     A.    DOUGLAS ,.  217 


CHAPTER   XVI. 

WAK     OF     THE     PAMPHLETS. 

Le^iers  to  Dorr  and  Peyton— Speeches  in  Ohio,  and  Cincinnati  Platform — 
Charleston  Convention — Presidental  Aspirants — The  Harper  Article — 
Black's  Reply — Appendix  of  Attorney  General — Rejoinder  of  Senator 
Douglas — The  Chase  and  Trumbull  Amendments — Consistency  of  Sena 
tor  Douglas. 

DUIIING  the  spring  and  summer  of  1859,  Mr.  Douglas 
received  many  letters  from  his  personal  friends,  soliciting  the 
use  of  his  name  as  a  candidate  for  the  Presidency  before  the 
Charleston  Convention,  to  one  of  which  he  replied  as  fol 
lows: 

WASHINGTON,  Wednesday,  June  22, 1869. 

MY  DEAR  SIR  :  I  have  received  your  letter  inquiring  whether  my  friends 
are  at  liberty  to  present  my  name  in  the  Charleston  Convention  for  the 
Presidential  nomination. 

Before  the  question  can  be  finally  determined,  it  will  be  necessary  to 
understand  distinctly  upon  what  issue  the  canvass  is  to  be  condccted.  If, 
ns  I  have  full  faith  they  will,  the  Democratic  party  shall  determine,  in  the 
Presidential  election  of  1860,  to  adhere  to  the  principles  embodied  in  the 
Compromise  measures  of  1850,  and  ratified  by  the  people  in  the  Presi 
dential  election  of  1852,  and  re-affirmed  in  the  Kansas-Nebraaka  Act  of 
1854,  and  incorporated  into  the  Cincinnati  platform  in  1856,  as  expounded 
by  Mr.  Buchanan  in  his  letter  accepting  the  nomination,  and  approved  by 
the  people — in  that  event  my  friends  will  be  at  liberty  to  present  my 
name  to  the  Convention,  if  they  see  proper  to  do  so.  If,  on  the  contrary, 
it  shall  become  the  policy  of  the  Democratic  party — which  I  cannot  anti 
cipate — to  repudiate  these,  their  time-honored  principles,  on  which  we 
have  achieved  so  many  patriotic  triumphs,  and  if,  in  lieu  of  them,  the 
Convention  shall  interpolate  into  the  creed  of  the  party  such  new  issues 

10 


218  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

as  the  revival  of  the  African  slave-trade,  or  a  Congressional  slave  code  for 
the  Territories,  or  the  doctrine  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
either  establishes  or  prohibits  slavery  in  the  Territories,  beyond  the 
power  of  the  people  legally  to  control  it  as  other  property,  it  is  due  to 
candor  to  say  that,  in  such  an  event,  I  could  not  accept  the  nomination  if 
tendered  to  me.  Trusting  that  this  answer  will  be  deemed  sufficiently 
explicit,  I  am,  very  respectfully,  your  friend, 

S.  A.  DOUGLAS. 
To  J.  B.  DORK,  Esq.,  Dubuque,  Iowa. 

The  publication  of  this  letter  produced  immense  enthu 
siasm  among  Mr.  Douglas'  friends  all  over  the  country,  and 
particularly  throughout  the  Northwest,  and  was  followed 
by  a  pressing  invitation  from  the  Democratic  State  Central 
Committee  of  Ohio  to  visit  that  State  and  address  the  people 
in  their  pending  canvass.  In  consequence  of  the  ill-health  of 
Mr.  Douglas  and  his  family,  he  was  only  able  to  make  three 
speeches  in  Ohio — at  Columbus,  Cincinnati  and  Wooster,  in 
each  of  which  places  the  Democracy  made  immense  gains  at 
the  fall  election,  averaging  one  thousand  votes  in  each 
county.  He  was  met  in  Cincinnati  by  large  numbers  of 
Democrats  from  Kentucky,  Indiana,  and  other  adjacent 
States,  and  wherever  he  went  was  greeted  with  the  wildest 
enthusiasm. 

We  omit  to  insert  extracts  from  these  speeches,  which  are 
among  the  ablest  and  best  of  his  political  life,  for  the  reason 
that  they  relate  chiefly  to  the  line  of  argument  which  has 
been  so  fully  illustrated  in  the  previous  pages  of  this  work. 
These  speeches  appeared  in  the  columns  of  the  New  York 
press  the  morning  after  their  delivery,  having  been  deemed 
of  sufficient  consequence  to  be  telegraphed  entire.  A  marked 
feature  of  these  addresses  was  his  solemn  protest  against  the 
incorporation  of  any  new  tests  of  faith  into  the  Democratic 
creed  which  would  tend  to  divide  and  defeat  the  party, 
insisting  upon  "  the  re-adoption  of  the  Cincinnati  platform 
without  the  addition  of  a  word  or  the  subtraction  of  a  letter." 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  219 

We  omitted  to  state,  that  on  his  way  to  Ohio,  Mr.  Douglas 
was  induced,  by  the  earnest  entreaties  of  the  Democrats  of 
Pittsburg,  to  remain  a  day  and  address  the  people  of  that 
city  in  behalf  of  the  regularly  nominated  State  ticket,  with  a 
view  to  the  pending  election. 

It  was  in  this  speech  that  Mr.  Douglas,  in  kind  but  firm 
language,  rebuked  those  Democrats  who  had  permitted  their 
passions  to  array  them  in  opposition  to  the  regular  organiza 
tion  of  their  party,  and  thus  contribute  to  the  success  of  the 
common  enemy. 

Notwithstanding  these  speeches  which  had  been  so  recent 
ly  published  throughout  the  country,  the  attorney-general 
of  the  United  States  did  not  hesitate,  a  few  weeks  afterward, 
in  an  anonymous  pamphlet,  the  authorship  of  which  he  subse 
quently  assumed,  to  call  in  question  Mr.  Douglas'  fidelity  to 
the  party  and  the  principles  of  the  Cincinnati  platform.  In 
reply,  after  arraigning  Judge  Black  and  his  confederates  for 
their  unnatural  coalition  with  the  Black  Republicans  in  the 
memorable  Illinois  campaign,  Mr.  Douglas  thus  meets  and 
crushes  his  assailant  in  his  allegation  that  the  former  intended 
to  insist  on  the  Charleston  Convention  adopting  his  interpre 
tation  of  the  Cincinnati  platform  : 

The  administration  claimed  the  right  to  "  change  and  interpolate  the 
Cincinnati  platform,  and  prescribe  new  and  different  tests ;"  while  the 
gallant  Democracy  of  that  noble  State  denied  "  the  right  of  any  power  on 
earth,  except  a  like  body,"  to  change  the  Cincinnati  platform  or  prescribe 
new  tests  ;  and  declared  that  "  they  will"neither  do  it  themselves,  nor  per 
mit  it  to  be  done  by  others,  but  will  recognize  all  men  as  Democrats 
who  stand  by  and  uphold  Democratic  principles." 

We  were  assailed  and  proscribed  because  we  did  startd  by  the  Cincinnati 
platform  ;  because  we  would  not  recognize  the  right  of  any  power  on  earth 
except  a  regularly  constituted  convention  of  the  party  to  change  the  plat 
form  and  interpolate  new  articles  into  the  creed ;  because  we  would  not 
sanction  the  new  issues  and  submit  to  the  new  tests  ;  because  we  woulu  not 
proscribe  any  Democrat,  nor  permit  the  proscription  of  Democrats  in  rou 


220  THE     LIFE     AND      SPEECHES     OF 

sequence  of  difference  of  opinion  upon  questions  which  had  arisen  subse 
quently  to  the  adoption  of  the  platform ;  and  because  we  recognized  all 
men  as  Democrats  who  supported  the  nominees  and  upheld  the  principles 
of  the  party  as  defined  by  the  last  National  Convention.  It  was  upon  this 
issue  and  for  these  reasons  that  the  power  and  patronage  of  the  Federal  Go 
vernment  were  wielded  in  concert  with  the  Black  Republicans  for  the  elec 
tion  of  their  candidates  in  preference  to  the  regular  nominees  of  the 
Democratic  party.  This  system  of  proscription  still  continues  in  Illinois, 
and  is  being  extended  throughout  the  Union,  with  the  view  of  controlling 
the  Charleston  nomination.  Fidelity  to  the  Cincinnati  platform  and  oppo 
sition  to  the  new  issues  and  tests  prescribed  by  men  in  power,  in  direct 
conflict  with  the  professions  upon  which  they  were  elected,  are  deemed 
disqualifications  for  office  and  cause  of  removal. 


THE   CHARLESTON    CONTENTION — PRESIDENTIAL   ASPIRANTS. 

The  reasons  for  singling  me  out  as  the  especial  object  for  anathema 
will  be  found  in  the  first  page  of  the  attorney-general's  pamphlet,  where 
he  says : 

"  He  (Douglas)  lias  been  for  years  a  working,  struggling  candidate  for  the  Presi 
dency  !" 

Suppose  it  were  true,  that  I  am  a  Presidential  aspirant ;  does  that  fact 
justify  a  combination  by  a  host  of  other  Presidential  aspirants,  each  of  whom 
may  imagine  that  his  success  depends  upon  my  destruction,  and  the  preach 
ing  a  crusade  against  me  for  boldly  avowing  now  the  same  principles  to 
which  they  and  I  were  pledged  at  the  last  Presidential  election?  Is  this 
a  sufficient  excuse  for  devising  a  new  test  of  political  orthodoxy  ;  and, 
under  pretext  of  fidelity  to  it,  getting  up  a  set  of  bolting  delegates  to  the 
Charleston  Convention  in  those  States  where  they  are  unable  to  control  the 
regular  organization  ?  The  time  is  not  far  distant  when  the  Democracy  of 
the  whole  Union  will  be  called  upon  to  consider  and  pronounce  judgment 
upon  this  question. 

What  authority  has  the  attorney-general,  aside  from  his  fears  and  hopes, 
for  saying  that  I  am  "  a  working,  struggling  candidate  for  the  Presidency  ?" 
My  best  friends  know  that  I  have  positively  and  peremptorily  refused  to 
have  anything  to  do  with  the  machinery  of  the  conventions  in  the  several 
States  by  which  the  delegates  to  the  Charleston  Convention  arc  to  be  ap 
pointed.  They  know  that  personally  I  do  not  desire  the  Presidency  at  this 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  221 

time— that  I  prefer  a  seat  in  the  Senate  for  the  next  six  years,  with  the 
chance  of  a  reelection,  to  being  President  for  four  years,  at  my  period  of 
life.  They  know  that  I  will  take  no  steps  to  obtain  the  Charleston  nomi 
nation,  that  I  will  make  no  sacrifice  of  principle,  no  concealment  of  opi 
nions,  no  concession  to  power  for  the  purpose  of  getting  it.  They  know, 
also,  that  I  only  consented  to  the  use  of  my  name  upon  their  earnest  repre 
sentations  that  the  good  of  the  Democratic  party  required  it,  and  even  then, 
upon  the  express  condition  that  the  Democratic  party  shall  determine  in 
the  Presidential  election  of  1860,  as  I  have  full  faith  they  will;  to  adhere  to 
the  principles  embodied  in  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850,  and  approved 
by  the  people  in  the  Presidential  election  of  1852,  and  incorporated  into  tho 
Kansas-Nebraska  Act  of  1854,  and  confirmed  by  the  Cincinnati  platform, 
and  ratified  by  the  people,  in  the  Presidential  election  of  1856.  Nor  can 
the  attorney-general  pretend  to  be  ignorant  of  the  fact  that  the  public 
were  informed  long  since,  that,  "  If,  on  the  contrary,  it  shall  become  the 
policy  of  the  Democratic  party,  which  I  cannot  anticipate,  to  repudiate 
these  their  time-honored  principles,  on  which  we  have  achieved  so  many 
patriotic  triumphs,  and  in  lieu  of  them  the  convention  shall  interpolate  into 
the  creed  of  the  party  such  new  issues  as  the  revival  of  the  African  slave 
trade,  or  a  Congressional  slave  code  for  the  Territories,  or  the  doctrine 
that  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  either  establishes  or  prohibits 
slavery  in  the  Territories  beyond  the  power  of  the  people  legally  to  control 
it,  as  other  property,  it  is  due  to  candor  to  say  that  in  such  an  event  I  could 
not  accept  the  nomination  if  tendered  to  me."  Is  this  the  language  of  a 
man  who  is  working  and  struggling  for  the  Presidency  upon  whatever 
terms,  and  by  the  use  of  whatever  means  it  could  be  obtained  ?  Or  does 
this  language  justify  that  other  charge,  that  I  am  making  new  issues  and 
prescribing  new  tests  in  violation  of  the  Cincinnati  platform  ? 

WOULD   VOTE   FOR   DEMOCRATIC    CANDIDATE,    THOUGH    NOT 
STANDING    ON    HIS   PLATFORM 

While  I  could  have  no  hesitation  in  voting  for  the  nominee  of  my  own 
party,  with  whom  I  might  differ  on  certain  points,  in  preference  to  the  can 
didate  of  the  Black  Republican  party,  whose  whole  creed  is  subversive  of 
the  Constitution  and  destructive  of  the  Union,  I  am  under  no  obligation 
to  become  a  candidate  upon  a  platform  that  I  would  not  be  willing  to 
carry  out  in  good  faith,  nor  to  accept  the  Presidency  on  the  implied 
pledge  to  carry  into  effect  certain  principles,  and  then  administer  tho 
government  in  direct  conflict  with  them.  In  other  words,  I  prefer  tho 


222       THE  LIFE  AND  SPEECHES  OF 

position  of  senator,  or  even  that  of  a  private  citizen,  where  I  would  be  at 
liberty  to  defend  and  maintain  the  well-defined  principles  of  the  Demo 
cratic  party,  to  accepting  a  Presidential  nomination  upon  a  platform  in 
compatible  with  the  principle  of  self-government  in  the  Territories,  or  the 
reserved  rights  of  the  States,  or  the  perpetuity  of  the  Union  under  the 
Constitution.  In  harmony  with  these  views,  I  said  in  those  very  speeches 
in  Ohio,  to  which  Judge  Black  refers  in  his  appendix,  that  I  was  in  favor 
of  conducting  the  great  struggle  of  1860  upon  "the  Cincinnati  platform 
witJiotit  the  addition  of  a  word  or  the  subtraction  of  a  letter"  Yet,  in  the 
face  of  all  these  facts,  the  attorney-general  does  not  hesitate  to  repre 
sent  me  as  attempting  to  establish  a  new  school  of  politics,  to  force  new 
issues  upon  the  party,  and  prescribe  new  tests  of  Democratic  faith. 

In  conclusion,  I  have  only  to  suggest  to  Judge  Black  and  his  confede 
rates  in  this  crusade,  whether  it  would  not  be  wiser  for  them,  and  more 
consistent  with  fidelity  to  the  party  which  placed  them  in  power,  to  exert 
their  energies  and  direct  all  their  efforts  to  the  redemption  of  Pennsylvania 
from  the  thralldom  of  Black  Republicanism,  than  to  continue  their  alliance 
with  the  Black  Republicans  in  Illinois,  with  the  vain  hope  of  dividing  and 
defeating  the  Democratic  party  in  the  *only  western  or  northern  State 
which  has  never  failed  to  cast  her  electoral  vote  for  the  regular  nominee  of 
the  Democratic  party  at  any  Presidential  election. 

WASHINGTON,  October ,  1S59. 

PROTECTION   TO    NATURALIZED   CITIZENS — AFRICAN   SLAVE 
TRADE. 

Mr.  Peyton,  of  Virginia,  formerly  of  Chicago,  having  ad 
dressed  a  letter  to  Mr.  Douglas,  in  which  he  informed  him 
that  his  views  in  respect  to  the  rights  of  naturalized  citizens 
and  the  reopening  of  the  African  slave  trade  were  the  sub 
ject  of  misrepresentation  in  tho  Old  Dominion,  Mr  Douglas 
replied : 

WASHINGTON,  Aug.  2,  1859. 
COLONEL  JOHN  L.  PEYTON,  Staunton,  Va. : 

MY  DEAK  SIR  :  You  do  me  no  more  than  justice  in  your  kind  let 
ter,  for  which  accept  my  thanks,  iu  assuming  that  I  do  not  concur  with 
the  administration  in  their  views  respecting  tha  rights  of  naturalized  citi 
zens,  as  defined  in  the  "  Le  Clerc  Letter,"  which,  it  is  proper  to  observe, 
have  since  been  materially  modified. 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  223 

Under  our  Constitution  there  can  be  no  just  distinction  between  the 
rights  of  native-born  and  naturalized  citizens  to  claim  the  protection  of 
our  government,  at  home  and  abroad.  Unless  naturalization  releases  the 
person  naturalized  from  all  obligations  which  he  owed  to  his  native  coun 
try,  by  virtue  of  his  allegiance,  it  leaves  him  in  the  sad  predicament  of 
owing  allegiance  to  two  countries,  without  receiving  protection  from 
cither,  a  dilemma  in  which  no  American  citizen  should  ever  be  placed. 

Neither  have  you  misapprehended  my  opinions  in  respect  to  the  Afri 
can  slave  trade.  That  question  seriously  disturbed  the  harmony  of  the 
convention  which  framed  the  federal  Constitution.  Upon  it  the  delegates 
divided  into  two  parties,  under  circumstances  which,  for  a  time,  rendered 
harmonious  action  impossible.  The  one  demanded  the  instant  and  uncon 
ditional  prohibition  of  the  African  slave  trade,  on  moral  and  religious 
grounds,  while  the  other  insisted  that  it  was  a  legitimate  commerce,  in 
volving  no  other  consideration  than  a  sound  public  policy,  which  each 
State  ought  to  be  permitted  to  determine  for  itself,  so  long  as  it  was  sane- 
tioned  by  its  own  laws.  Each  party  stood  firmly  and  resolutely  by  its 
own  position  until  both  became  convinced  that  this  vexed  question  would 
break  up  the  convention,  destroy  the  federal  Union,  blot  out  the  glories 
of  the  Revolution,  and  throw  away  all  its  blessings,  unless  some  fair  and 
just  compromise  could  be  formed  on  the  common  ground  of  such  mutual 
concessions  as  were  indispensable  to  the  preservation  of  their  liberties, 
Union,  and  independence. 

Such  a  compromise  was  effected  and  incorporated  into  the  Constitution, 
by  which  it  was  understood  that  the  African  slave  trade  might  continue 
as  a  legitimate  commerce  in  those  States  whose  laws  sanctioned  it  until 
the  year  1808,  from  and  after  which  time  Congress  might  and  would  pro 
hibit  it  forever,  throughout  the  dominion  and  limits  of  the  United  States, 
and  pass  all  laws  which  might  become  necessary  to  make  such  prohibition 
effectual.  The  harmony  of  the  convention  was  restored,  and  the  Union 
saved  by  this  compromise,  without  which  the  Constitution  could  never 
have  been  made. 

I  stand  firmly  by  this  compromise,  and  by  all  the  other  compromises  of 
the  Constitution,  and  shall  use  my  best  efforts  to  carry  each  and  all  of 
them  into  faithful  execution,  and  in  the  sense  and  with  the  understanding 
which  they  were  originally  adopted.  I  am  irreconcilably  opposed  to  the 
revival  of  the  African  slave  trade,  in  any  form  and  under  any  circum 
stances.  I  am,  with  great  respect,  yours  truly, 

S.  A.  DOUGLAS. 


22-i  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES      OF 


THE    HAEPER    ARTICLE. 

In  the  September  (1859)  number  of  "Hamper's  Magazine," 
Mr.  Douglas  published  over  his  own  name,  an  article  entitled 
"Popular  Sovereignty  in  the  Territories:  The  Dividing 
Line  between  Federal  and  Local  Authority."  This  article 
was  read  with  avidity  by  the  public,  and  for  some  days  after 
its  appearance,  nothing  else  was  talked  of  in  political  circles. 
It  is  a  clear  elucidation  of  the  line  that  divides  the  authority 
of  the  Federal  Government  from  that  of  local  authorities ;  and 
of  the  great  principle  that  every  distinct  political  community, 
loyal  to  the  Constitution  and  the  Union,  is  entitled  to  all  the 
rights,  privileges,  and  immunities  of  self-government  in 
respect  to  their  local  concerns  and  internal  polity,  subject 
.only  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  He  exposes 
the  erroneous  views  entertained  by  the  "  Republican  "  party 
on  these  points  :  shows  that  the  courts  in  a  Territory  derive 
all  their  powers  from  the  Territorial  legislature  :  that  nil 
powers  conferred  on  Congress  by  the  Constitution,  must  be 
exercised  by  Congress  in  the  manner  prescribed  in  the  Con 
stitution  ;  but  that  Congress  may  establish  local  governments, 
and  invest  them  with  powers  which  Congress  itself  cannot 
constitutionally  exercise. 

He  shows  by  the  records  of  the  provincial  legislature  of 
Virginia,  that  in  1772,  the  Virginians  were  unwilling  to  have 
slavery  forced  upon  them  :  that  in  1776,  the  inhuman  use  of 
the  royal  negative,  in  refusing  the  colony  of  Virginia  per 
mission  to  exclude  slavery  from  her  limits  by  law,  was  one 
of  the  reasons  for  separating  from  Great  Britain :  and  that  in 
all  the  thirteen  colonies,  slavery  was  regarded  as  a  domestic 
question,  to  be  considered  and  determined  by  each  colony  to 
suit  itself,  without  the  intervention  of  the  British  parliament. 
He  proves  that  the  principle  of  popular  sovereignty  was  afc 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  225 

the  very  foundation  of  the  causes  that  led  to  the  Revolution: 
showing  that  the  patriots  of  1776  fought  for  the  inalienable 
right  of  local  self-government,  with  the  clear  understanding 
that  when  the  despotism  of  the  British  parliament  was 
thrown  off,  no  Congressional  despotism  was  to  be  substituted 
for  it. 

He  proves  by  a  citation  of  Jefferson's  plan  for  the  govern 
ment  of  the  first  Territory  ever  owned  by  the  United  States, 
that  by  it,  the  right  of  Congress  to  bind  the  people  of  the 
Territories  without  their  consent  was  emphatically  ignored  ; 
and  the  people  therein  recognized  as  the  source  of  all  local 
power  :  that  in  forming  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
in  1787,  the  Convention  took  the  British  constitution  for 
their  model,  conferring  upon  the  Federal  Government  the 
same  powers  which,  as  colonies,  they  had  been  willing  to 
concede  to  the  British  government,  and  reserving  to  the 
States  and  to  the  people,  the  rights  for  which  the  Revolution 
had  been  fought.  He  shows  that  the  clause  in  the  Constitu 
tion  which  gives  to  Congress  "  power  to  dispose  of,  and 
make  all  needful  rules  and  regulations  for  the  Territory  " — 
refers  exclusively  to  property,  in  contradistinction  to  persons 
and  communities  ;  but  does  not  authorize  Congress  to  inter 
pose  or  interfere  with  the  internal  polity  of  the  people  who 
may  reside  upon  lands  which  the  United  States  once  owned. 

He  alludes  to  the  erroneous  views  that  have  been  put  forth 
in  regard  to  the  Dred  Scott  case ;  and  shows  that  the  slavery 
question  was  not  included  in  the  class  of  prohibited  powers 
to  which  the  Constitution  alluded.  He  describes  the  steps 
by  which  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850  were  formed, 
and  the  principles  on  which  they  were  based  ;  and  shows  that 
they  are  the  same  principles  upon  which  the  Nebraska  Bill  of 
1854  was  formed. 

"We  give  a  few  extracts  from  the  article,  which  possesses 
»  permanent  historical  value,  in  the  Appendix  to  this 

10* 


THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

The  appearance  of  the  Harper  article  caused,  as  has  been 
stated,  the  most  profound  sensation  in  political  circles. 

The  exposition  of  the  question  produced  consternation 
and  dismay  in  the  camp  of  the  assailants  of  Judge  Douglas. 
Their  hope  was  to  secure  the  confidence  and  favor  of  the 
South  by  conceding  their  right  to  plant  slavery  in  the  Terri 
tories  in  opposition  to  the  wishes  of  the  people,  and  in  de 
fiance  of  the  Territorial  authorities;  and  at  the  same  time, 
satisfy  the  North  by  withholding  all  legislative  protection 
and  judicial  remedies,  without  which  the  right  becomes  a 
naked,  useless,  worthless  possession.  The  exposure  of  Mr. 
Douglas  opened  their  eyes  to  the  dangers  of  their  perilous 
position,  and  made  it  obvious,  even  to  their  comprehension, 
that  they  could  no  longer  successfully  maintain  the  ground 
they  then  occupied.  Afraid  to  advance  and  pursue  their 
doctrines  to  their  logical  consequences,  and  ashamed  to  re 
treat  and  return  to  the  impregnable  position  of  popular 
sovereignty,  which  they  had  so  recently  abandoned,  they 
began  to  look  about  for  some  new  expedient  to  relieve 
themselves  from  the  awkward  dilemma  into  which  they  had 
been  driven  by  one  short  article  in  "  Harper's  Magazine." 
Accordingly  Judge  Black  wras  deputed  to  frame  an  answer  to 
the  masterly  paper  of  Mr.  Douglas. 

The  attorney-general's  reply  to  the  Harper  article  ap 
peared  in  the  "  Washington  Constitution,"  the  central  organ 
of  the  assailants  of  Judge  Douglas,  in  October.  A  few  days 
after,  Mr.  Douglas  made  a  speech  at  Wooster,  in  which  he 
replied  to  the  pamphlet  of  the  attorney-general.  The  latter 
functionary  published  an  appendix  to  his  former  article,  and 
on  the  17th  of  November,  Mr.  Douglas  published  a  rejoin 
der,  from  which  we  make  the  following  extracts  : 


111  my  reply  to  Judge  Black  I  produced  and  quoted  the  decisions 
of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  in  which  the  following 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  227 

propositions  were  solemnly  and  authoritatively  established  as  the 
law  of  the  land  : 

1st.  That  the  state  of  slavery  is  a  mere  municipal  regulation, 
founded  upon  and  limited  to  the  range  of  Territorial  laws. 

2d.  That  the  laws  of  one  State  or  country  can  have  no  force  01 
effect' in  another  without  its  consent,  express  or  implied. 

3d.  That,  in  the  absence  of  any  positive  rule  upon  the  subject, 
affirming  or  denying  or  restraining  the  operation  of  the  foreign  law 
or  laws  of  one  State  or  country  in  their  application  to  another,  the 
courts  will  presume  the  tacit  adoption  of  them  by  the  government 
of  the  place  where  they  are  sought  to  be  enforced,  unless  they  aro 
repugnant  to  its  policy,  or  prejudicial  to  its  interests. 

The  attorney-general  neither  admits  nor  denies  the  correctness 
of  these  propositions,  nor  does  he  either  admit  or  deny  that  the 
courts  have  so  decided.  To  admit  their  correctness  would  necessarily 
involve  an  abandonment  of  his  position  and  a  confession  that  he  had 
been  wrong  from  the  beginning.  To  deny  them  would  bring  him  in 
direct  conflict  with  the  authority  of  the  court  and  expose  him  to  an 
inevitable  conviction  by  the  record. 

******* 

Judge  Black  has  not  attempted  to  reconcile  his  opinion  with  the 
decision  of  the  court.  No  man  in  his  senses  can  fail  to  perceive  that 
if  the  court  is  right,  Judge  Black  is  inevitably  wrong.  Although  the 
whole  legal  controversy  between  Judge  Black  and  myself  turns  on 
this  one  point,  I  did  not  choose,  in  my  reply,  to  offset  my  individual 
opinion  against  his,  or  to  bring  the  two  into  comparison.  As  the 
question  at  issue  could  only  be  determined  by  authority,  I  said  : 

"  Of  course  I  express  no  opinion  of  my  own,  since  I  make  it  a  rule  to  acqui 
esce  in  the  decisions  of  the  courts  upon  all  legal  questions." 

And  again,  in  concluding  what  I  had  to  say  on  the  legal  points  at 
issue,  I  added : 

"  In  all  that  I  have  said,  I  have  been  content  to  assume  the  law  to  be  as  de 
cided  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  without  presuming  that  my 
individual  opinion  would  either  strengthen  or  invalidate  their  decisions." 

If  Judge  Black  could  reconcile  it  with  his  dignity  and  sense  of 
duty  to  act  on  the  same  assumption,  there  could  be  no  controversy 
between  him  and  me  in  regard  to  the  law  of  the  case.  According 
to  the  doctrine  of  the  court,  a  white  man,  with  a  negro  wife  and 
mulatto  children,  under  a  marriage  lawful  in  Massachusetts,  on  re 
moval  into  a  Territory,  could  not  maintain  that  interesting  "  private 
relation,"  under  the  laws  of  Massachusetts,  without  the  consent  or 
tacit  adoption  of  the  Massachusetts  law  by  the  Territorial  govern 
ment.  On  the  contrary,  if  Judge  Black's  view  of  the  axiomatic  prin- 


228  THE     LIFE     A.ND     SPEECHES     OF 

ciple  of  public  law  be  correct,  this  disgusting  and  demoralizing  system 
of  amalgamation  may  be  introduced  and  maintained  in  the  Territories 
under  the  law  of  Massachusetts,  in  defiance  of  the  wishes  of  the 
people  and  in  contempt  of  all  Territorial  authority,  until  "  they  get  a 
constitutional  convention  or  the  machinery  of  a  State  government  in 
their  hands."  It  is  true  that  Judge  Black  limits  this  right  to  those 
places  where  there  is  no  law  "in  direct  conflict  with  it ;"  but  he  also 
says  in  the  same  pamphlet  that  the  Territories  "  have  no  attribute  of 
sovereignty  about  them,"  and,  therefore,  are  incapable  of  making 
any  law  in  conflict  with  this  "private  relation"  which  is  lawful  in 
Massachusetts. 

According  to  the  doctrine  of  the  court,  a  Turk,  with  thirteen 
wives,  under  a  marriage  lawful  in  his  own  country,  could  not  move 
into  the  Territories  of  the  United  States  with  his  family  and  main 
tain  his  marital  rights  under  the  laws  of  Turkey  without  the  consent 
or  tacit  adoption  of  the  Turkish  law  by  the  Territorial  government. 

In  accordance  with  the  Black  doctrine  (I  use  the  term  for  conve 
nience  and  with  entire  respect),  polygamy  may  be  introduced  into 
all  the  territories,  maintained  under  the  laws  of  Turkey,  "  until  the 
people  of  the  Territory  get  a  constitutional  convention  or  the  ma 
chinery  of  a  State  government  into  their  hands,"  with  competent 
authority  to  make  laws  in  conflict  with  this  "private  relation." 

According  to  the  doctrine  of  the  court,  the  peddler  with  his 
clocks,  the  liquor-dealer  with  his  whiskies,  the  merchant  with  his 
goods,  and  the  master  with  his  slaves,  on  removal  to  a  Territory,  can 
not  hold,  protect,  or  sell  their  property  under  the  laws  of  the 
States  whence  they  came,  respectively,  without  the  consent  or  tacit 
adoption  of  those  laws  by  the  Territorial  government. 

According  to  the  Black  doctrine,  however,  any  one  person,  black 
or  white,  from  any  State  of  the  Union,  and  from  any  country  upon 
the  globe,  may  remove  into  the  Territories  of  the  United  States,  and 
carry  with  him  the  law  of  the  State  or  country  whence  he  carne,  for 
the  protection  of  any  "  right  of  property,  private  relation,  condition, 
or  status,  lawfully  existing  in  such  State  or  country,"  without  the 
consent  and  in  defiance  of  the  authority  of  the  Territorial  govern 
ment,  and  maintain  the  same  "  until  they  get  a  constitutional  con 
vention  or  the  machinery  of  a  State  government  into  their  hands." 

This  is  the  distinct  issue  between  Judge  Black  and  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States.  It  is  not  an  issue  between  the  attor 
ney-general  and  myself,  for  in  the  beginning  of  the  controversy  I 
announced  my  purpose  "to  assume  the  law  to  be  as  decided  by  the 
court,  without  presuming  that  my  individual  opinion  would  either 
strengthen  or  invalidate  their  decisions." 


But  if  it  be  true,  as  contended  by  Judge  Black,  that  the  Territories 
cannot  legislate  upon  the  subject  or  slavery,  or  any  other  right  of 
property,  private  relation,  condition,  or  status,  lawfully  existing  in 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  229 

another  State  or  country,  it  necessarily  results  that  the  Territorial  le 
gislature  cannot  adopt  the  laws  of  other  States  or  countries  for  tha 
protection  of  such  rights  and  institutions,  and  consequently  that  tho 
courts  cannot  presume  the  tacit  adoption  of  such  laws  by  the  Territo 
rial  government  in  the  absence  of  any  power  to  adopt  them.  Here, 
again,  we  see  that  the  doctrine  of  Judge  Black,  if  it  does  not  con 
clusively  establish  a  right  without  the  possibility  of  a  remedy,  is 
certainly  equivalent  to  the  Wilmot  Proviso  in  its  practical  results,  so 
far  as  the  institution  of  slavery  is  concerned.  I  demonstrated  this 
proposition  to  him  in  my  "reply"  so  conclusively  that  he  did  not 
venture  to  deny  it,  much  less  attempt  to  answer  the  argument  in  his 
"  rejoinder." 

I  do  not  deem  it  necessary  to  notice  in  detail  the  many  strange 
and  unaccountable  misrepresentations  in  his  "  rejoinder"  of  the  mat 
ters  of  fact  and  law  set  forth  in  my  "reply,"  to  which  he  was  pro 
fessing  to  respond.  One  or  two  instances  will  suffice  as  specimens 
of  the  manner  in  which  the  attorney-general  is  in  the  habit  of  dis 
posing  of  authorities  which  stand  as  insuperable  obstacles  in  the  path 
of  his  argument.  In  my  "  reply  "  I  quoted  the  following  paragraph 
from  Judge  Story's  "Conflict  of  Laws,"  to  show  that  he,  at  least, 
thought  the  law  was  precisely  the  reverse  of  what  Judge  Black  sup 
posed  it  to  be : 

"  There  is  a  uniformity  of  opinion  among  foreign  jurists  and  foreign  tribunals 
in  giving  no  effect  to  the  state  of  slavery  of  a  party,  whatever  it  may  have  been 
in  the  country  of  his  birth,  or  that  in  which  he  had  been  previously  domiciled, 
unless  it  is  also  recognized  by  the  laws  of  the  country  of  his  actual  domicil,  and 
where  he  is  found,  and  it  is  sought  to  be  enforced.  [After  citing  various  au 
thorities,  Judge  Story  proceeds  :]  In  Scotland  the  like  doctrine  has  been 
solemly  adjudged.  The  tribunals  of  France  have  adopted  the  same  rule,  even 
in  relation  to  slaves  coming  from  and  belonging  to  their  own  colonies.  This  is 
aldo  the  undisputed  law  of  England." 

Now  for  Judge  Black's  reply  to  these  passages  from  Judge  Story  : 
"  These  passages  (will  the  reader  believe  it?)  merely  show  that  a 
slave  becomes  free  when  taken  to  a  country  where  slavery  is  NOT 
TOLKRA.TED  by  law  /"  Substituting  the  words  "not  tolerated  by  law  " 
for  the  words  "unless  it  is  also  recognized  by  law,"  Judge  Black 
reverses  Judge  Story's  meaning,  and  makes  that  learned  jurist  declare 
the  law  to  be  precisely  the  reverse  of  what  Judge  Story  stated  it  to 
be!  "  Will  the  reader  believe  itT"1  Not  content  with  changing  the 
language  and  reversing  the  meaning,  and  citing  it,  in  its  altered  form, 
as  evidence  that  I  had  misapplied  the  quotation,  the  attorney-gen 
eral  has  the  audacity  to  exclaim  in  parenthesis,  for  the  purpose  of 
giving  greater  emphasis  to  his  allegation,  "will  the  reader  believe 
it  ?"  Judge  Black  cannot  avoid  the  responsibility  which  justly 
attaches  to  such  conduct  by  the  pretence  that  slavery  was  prohibited 
by  law  in  Scotland,  England  and  France,  for  the  reason  that  tho 
reports  of  the  cases  show  that  the  laws  of  those  countries  were  silent 
upon  the  subject,  and  that  the  decisions  wore  made  upon  the  disdnol 


230  THE     LIFE     AND     S  P  E  E  C  II  E  S     OF 

ground  that  there  was  no  law  recognizing  slavery,  and  not  upon  tha 
ground  that  it  was  prohibited  by  law. 

*****&* 

I  will  now  devote  a  few  words  to  a  more  pleasing  and  agreeable 
duty,  by  presenting  to  the  public  some  of  the  beneficial  results  of 
this  discussion.  The  attorney-general  has  been  forced,  by  the  exi 
gencies  of  the  controversy,  step  by  step  and  with  extreme  reluctance, 
to  make  several  important  confessions,  which  necessarily  involve  an 
abandonment,  on  the  part  of  his  clients,  of  various  pernicious  heresies 
with  which  the  country  has  been  threatened  for  the  last  two  years. 

First,  that  slavery  exists  in  the  Territories  by  virtue  of  the  Consti 
tution  of  the  United  States.  .  .  .  Hence,  we  find  on  the  second 
page  of  Judge  Black's  pamphlet  these  emphatic  words :  "  The  Con 
stitution  certainly  does  not  establish  slavery  in  the  Territories  or  any 
where  else.  Nobody  in  this  country  ever  thought  or  said  so." 

This  confession  is  ample  reward  for  all  the  labor  that  the  article  in 
"  Harper's  Magazine "  cost  me,  protesting,  however,  that  I  am  ac 
quainted  with  no  rule  of  Christian  morality  which  justifies  gentlemen 
in  saying  "that  nobody  in  this  country  ever  thought  or  said  so,"  in 
the  face  of  Mr.  Buchanan's  Silliman  letter  and  Lecompton  message. 
This  confession  is  presumed  to  have  the  sanction  of  the  President 
and  his  cabinet,  and  therefore  may  be  justly  regarded  as  an  official 
and  authoritative  abandonment  of  the  pernicious  heresy  with  which 
the  country  has  been  irritated  for  the  last  two  years,  that  slavery 
exists  in  the  Territories  by  virtue  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States. 

#  *  #  #  *  -*  •& 

Another  political  heresy,  which  is  in  substance,  although  not  in 
terms,  abandoned  in  Judge  Black's  rejoinder,  is  "that  the  Territories 
have  no  attribute  of  sovereignty  about  them." 

It  will  be  recollected  that  in  my  Harper  article  I  drew  a  parallel 
between  our  Territories  and  the  American  Colonies,  and  showed 
that  each  possessed  the  exclusive  power  of  legislation  in  respect  to 
their  internal  polity ;  that,  according  to  our  American  theory,  in 
contradistinction  to  the  European  theory,  this  right  of  self-govern 
ment  was  not  derived  from  the  monarch  or  government,  but  was 
inherent  in  the  people. 

******  * 

In  reply,  Judge  Black  argued  that  this  claim  involved  the  posses 
sion  of  sovereignty  by  the  people  of  the  Territories ;  that  "  they  have 
no  attribute  of  sovereignty  about  them  ;"  that  "they  are  public  cor 
porations  established  by  Congress  to  manage  the  local  affairs  of  the 
inhabitants,  like  the  government  of  a  city  established  by  a  State  le 
gislature;"  that  "there  is  probably  no  city  in  the  United  States 
whose  powers  are  not  larger  than  those  of  a  federal  Territory  ;51  and 
in  fact,  adopting  the  Tory  doctrine  of  the  Revolution,  that  all  political 
power  is  derived  from  the  crown  or  government,  and  not  inherent 
in  the  people. 


STEPHEN     A  .     DOUGLAS.  231 

In  my  reply  I  showed  that  the  people  of  the  Territories  do  pass 
laws  for  the  protection  of  life,  liberty  and  property,  and,  in  pursuance 
of  those  laws,  do  deprive  the  citizen  of  life,  liberty  and  property, 
whenever  the  same  become  forfeited  by  crimes ;  that  they  exercise 
the  sovereign  power  of  taxation  over  all  private  property  within 
their  limits,  and  divest  the  title  for  non-payment  of  taxes ;  that  they 
exercise  the  sovereign  power  of  creating  corporations,  municipal, 
public  and  private ;  that  they  possess  "  legislative  power  "  over  u  all 
rightful  subjects  of  legislation  consistent  with  the  Constitution  and 
the  organic  act;"  and  I  quoted  the  language  of  Chief  Justice  Mar 
shall,  in  delivering  the  unanimous  opinion  of  the  Supreme  Court,  that 
"  all  legislative  powers  appertain  to  sovereignty.'1'' 

Now  let  us  see  with  what  bad  grace  and  worse  manners,  and  yet 
how  completely  the  attorney-general  backs  down  fromhis  main  po 
sition,  that  the  Territories  "  have  no  attribute  of  sovereignty  about 
them  :" 

"  Every  half-grown  boy  in  the  country  who  has  given  the  usual  amount  of 
study  to  the  English  tongue,  or  who  has  occasionally  looked  into  a  dictionary, 
knows  that  the  sovereignty  of  a  government  consists  in  its  uncontrollable  right 
to  exercise  the  highest  power.  But  Mr.  Douglas  tries  to  clothe  the  Territories 
with  the  '  attributes  of  sovereignty,'  not  by  proving  the  supremacy  of  their 
jurisdiction  in  any  matter  or  thing  whatsoever,  but  merely  by  showing  that 
they  may  be,  and  some  of  them  have  been,  authorized  to  legislate  within  cer 
tain  limits,  to  exercise  the  right  of  eminent  domain,  to  lay  and  collect  taxes  for 
territorial  purposes,  to  deprive  a  citizen  of  life,  liberty  or  property,  as  a  pun 
ishment  for  crime,  and  to  create  corporations.  All  this  is  true  enough,  but  it 
does  by  no  means  follow  that  the  provisional  government  of  a  Territory  is, 
therefore,  a  sovereign  in  any  sense  of  the  word." 


ABSURDITIES    OF    BLACK'S    AEGUMENTS. 

So  he  surrenders  at  last.  This  discussion  furnishes  a  single  exam 
ple  of  what  perseverance  can  accomplish.  It  has  taken  a  long  time 
to  drive  the  attorney-general  into  the  admission  that  the  people  of 
a  Territory  are  clothed  with  the  LAW-MAKING  POWEK;  with  the  right 
"to  legislate  within  certain  limits"  (that  is  to  say,  upon  "  all  right 
ful  subjects  of  legislation  consistent  with  the  Constitution");  with 
"  the  right  of  eminent  domain,  to  lay  and  collect  taxes  for  Territorial 
purposes,  to  deprive  a  citizen  of  life,  liberty,  and  property,  as  a  pun 
ishment  for  crime,  and  to  create  corporations."  1  am  not  quite 
sure  that  "every  half-grown  boy  in  the  country  who  has  given  the 
usual  amount  of  study  to  the  English  tongue,  or  has  occasionally 
looked  into  a  dictionary,"  does  know  that  these  powers  are  all  "attri 
butes  of  sovereignty ;"  but  I  am  very  confident  that  no  respectable 
court,  jurist,  or  lawyer,  "  on  this  side  of  China  "  (Judge  Black  alone 
excepted),  ever  exposed  their  ignorance  by  questioning  it,  much  less 
had  the  audacity  to  deny  it.  Since  the  fact  is  admitted,  that  the 
Territories  do  possess  and  may  rightfully  exercise  those  "legislative 
powers  "  which  are  recognized  throughout  the  civilized  world  as  the 


232       THE   LIFE  AND   SPEECHES   OF 

very  highest  attributes  of  sovereignty — the  power  over  life,  liberty 
and  property — I  shall  not  waste  time  in  disputing  with  the  attorney- 
general  about  the  name  by  which  he  chooses  to  call  them.  It  is 
sufficient  for  my  purpose  that  I  have  at  last  forced  him  into  the  ad 
mission  that  the  law-making  power  over  all  rightful  subjects  of  legis 
lation  appertaining  to  life,  liberty,  and  property,  resides  in,  and  may 
be  rightfully  exercised  by  the  Territories,  subject  only  to  the  limita 
tions  of  the  Constitution. 

This  brings  to  my  notice  another  important  confession  in  Judge 
Black's  rejoinder,  intimately  connected  with  the  preceding,  which  is: 
THAT  IT  is  AX  INSULT  TO  THE  AMERICAN  PEOPLE  TO  SUPPOSE  THAT 

THE  PEOPLE  OF  ANY  ORGANIZED  TERRITORY  WOULD  ABUSE  THE  RIGHT 
OF  SELF-GOVERNMENT  IF  IT  WERE  CONCEDED  TO  THEM. 

This  last  confession,  taken  in  connection  with  the  previous  admis 
sion  of  the  power,  removes  the  last  vestige  of  any  substantial  objec 
tion  to  the  doctrine  of  popular  sovereignty  in  the  Territories.  Unable 
to  make  any  plausible  argument  against  it  in  theory  and  upon  prin 
ciple,  as  explained  in  "  Harper's  Magazine,"  Judge  Black  expended 
all  the  powers  and  energies  of  his  intellect  in  his  first  pamphlet  to 
render  the  doctrine  odious  and  detestable  upon  the  presumption  of  its 
probable  practical  results.  He  argued  that  it  might  result  in  "legis 
lative  robbery ;"  that  "  they  may  take  every  kind  of  property  in  mere 
caprice,  or  for  any  purpose  of  lucre  or  malice,  without  process  of  law, 
and  without  providing  for  compensation ;"  that  "  they  may  order  the 
miners  to  give  up  every  ounce  of  gold  that  has  been  dug  at  Pike's 
Peak ;"  that  they  may  "  license  a  band  of  marauders  to  despoil  the 
emigrants  crossing  the  Territory." 

These  were  the  arguments  employed  by  the  attorney-general,  in 
the  beginning  of  this  controversy,  to  render  the  doctrine  of  popular 
sovereignty  odious  and  detestable  in  the  eyes  of  all  honest  men,  and 
to  prepare  the  minds  of  the  people  for  the  favorable  reception  of  his 
new  doctrine,  that  property  in  the  Territories  must  be  protected 
under  the  laws  of  the  State  whence  the  owner  removed.  Very  soon, 
however,  the  lawyers  began  to  amuse  themselves  and  the  public  by 
exposing  the  folly  and  absurdity  of  the  pretence  that  the  Territo 
rial  courts  could  apply  the  judicial  remedies  prescribed  by  the 
legislature  of  Kentucky,  or  of  any  other  State.  Becoming  ashamed 
of  his  position,  Judge  Black  wrote  an  appendix  to  his  pamphlet,  in 
which  he  declared  that  while  the  "title  which  the  owner  acquired  in 
the  State  "  from  whence  he  removed  must  be  respected  in  the  Terri 
tory,  "  THE  ABSURD  INFERENCE  which  some  persons  have  drawn  from 
it  is  not  true,  that  the  master  also  takes  with  him  the  JDDICIAL  REME- 
DIKS  which  were  famished  him  at  the  place  where  his  title  was  ac 
quired,"  and  that  "the  respective  rights  and  obligations  of  the  parties 
must  be  protected  and  enforced  ~by  the,  law  prevailing  at  the  place 
where  they  are  supposed  to  lie  violated.'1'1 

By  this  time  it  was  my  turn  to  reply,  when  T  showed  that  his  doc 
trine,  if  true,  established  a  RIGHT  WITHOUT  A  REMEDY,  and  if  the 


STEPHEN      A.     DOUGLAS.  233 

people  of  the  Territories  could  not  be  trusted  in  the  management  of 
their  own  affairs,  and  in  the  protection  of  life,  liberty,  and  property, 
they  could  not  ~be  relied  upon  to  provide  the  remedies!  This  reply 
was  made  in  good  faith,  and  believed  to  be  pertinent  to  the  issue 
and  fatal  to  his  position.  Instead  of  receiving  it  in  good  temper, 
obviating  the  force  of  it  by  fair  argument,  if  it  were  possible  for  him 
to  do  so,  he  flies  into  a  rage  and  denies  that  he  "  said  that  an  "'";- 


grant  to  a  Territory  had  a  right  to  his  property  without  a  remedy," 
and  that  "*«  is  an  insult  to  the  American  people  to  suppose  that  any 
community  can  he  organized  within  the  limits  of  our  Union  who  will 
tolerate  such  a  state  of  things."  Listen  to  his  patriotic  indignation 
at  the  bare  suggestion  that  the  people  of  the  Territories  cannot  be 
trusted  to  guard  and  protect  the  rights  of  property  and  provide  the 
remedies : 

"  I  never  said  that  an  immigrant  to  a  Territory  had  a  right  to  his  property 
without  a  remedy  ;  but  I  admit  that  he  must  look  for  his  remedy  to  the  law  of 
his  new  domicil.  It  is  true  that  he  takes  his  life,  his  limbs,  his  reputation,  and 
his  property,  and  with  them  he  takes  nothing  but  his  naked  right  to  keep  them 
and  enjoy  them.  He  leaves  the  judicial  remedies  of  his  previous  domicil  behind 
him.  It  is  also  true  that  in  a  Territory  just  beginning  to  be  settled,  he  may 
need  remedies  for  the  vindication  of  his  rights  above  all  things  else.  In  his 
new  home  there  may  be  bands  of  base  marauders,  without  conscience  or  the 
fear  of  God  before  their  eyes,  who  are  ready  to"  rob  and  murder,  and  spare 
nothing  that  man  or  woman  holds  dear.  In  such  a  time  it  is  quite  possible  to 
imagine  an  abolition  legislature  whose  members  owe  their  seats  to  Sharpe's 
rifles  and  the  money  of  the  Emigration  Aid  Society.  Very  possibly  a_legisla- 
ture  so  chosen  might  employ  itself  in  passing  laws  unfriendly  to  the  rights  of 
honest  men  and  friendly  to  the  business  of  the  robber  and  the  murderer.  I 
concede  this,  and  Mr.  Douglas  is  entitled  to  all  the  comfort  it  affords  him. 
Bat  it  is  an  insult  to  the  American  people  to  suppose,  that  any  community  can 
be  organized  within  the  limits  of  our  Union,  who  will  tolerate  such  a  state 
of  things." 

Why  did  Judge  Black  insult  the  American  people  by  supposing  and 
assuming  that  they  would  do  these  things  if  left  free  to  regulate  their 
own  internal  polity  and  domestic  affairs  in  their  own  way  ?  It  was 
deemed  a  necessary  expedient  in  order  to  render  popular  sovereignty 
and  its  advocates  odious  and  detestable.  Why  then  did  he,  in  the 
course  of  the  same  discussion,  turn  round  and  say  it  was  an  insult  to 
the  American  people  to  suppose  that  the  people  of  the  Territories 
would  do  those  things  when  allowed  to  regulate  their  own  affairs  in 
their  own  way  ?  This,  too,  was  in  turn  deemed  a  necessary  expe 
dient  in  order  to  avoid  the  horn  of  the  dilemma  into  which  he  had 
been  fairly  driven,  and  escape  the  odium  of  an  attempt  to  deceive  the 
southern  people,  of  which  he  had  been  fairly  convicted  of  advocating 
a  "  right  without  a  remedy." 

To  what  desperate  shifts  will  men  resort  or  be  driven  when  they 
deliberately  abandon  principle  FOE  expediency  ?  No  more  striking 
or  humiliating  illustration  of  this  truth  was  ever  given  than  this  con 
troversy  presents.  Each  change  of  ground,  every  shifting  of  position 
has  been  done  as  an  expedient  to  avoid  what  at  the  time  was  deemed 


23-1  THE      LIFE     AND      SPEECHES      OF 

a  worse  alternative.  The  ground  on  which  Mr.  Buchanan  was  elected, 
that  "  the  people  of  a  Territory,  like  those  of  a  State,  shall  decide  for 
themselves  whether  slavery  shall  or  shall  not  exist  within  their 
limits,"  was  changed,  and  in  lieu  of  it  the  position  assumed  that 
u  slavery  exists  in  the  Territories  by  virtue  of  the  Constitution,"  as 
an  expedient  to  obtain  the  support  of  certain  southern  ultras  and 
fire-eaters  who  had  always  opposed  popular  sovereignty,  on  the  sup 
position  that  without  such  support  Mr.  Buchanan's  administration 
would  be  in  a  minority  in  the  two  houses  of  Congress.  The  confes 
sion  that  "  the  Constitution  certainly  does  not  establish  slavery  in 
the  Territories,  nor  anywhere  else,"  was  made,  and  the  position  that 
slavery  may  be  protected  in  the  Territories  under  the  laws  of  other 
States,  assumed  as  an  expedient  to  avoid  the  necessity  of  supporting 
a  Congressional  slave  code.  The  confession  that  the  people  of  the 
Territories  may  exercise  legislative  powers  over  all  righful  subjects 
of  legislation,  pertaining  to  life,  liberty,  and  property,  was  made  as 
an  expedient  to  avoid  the  odium  of  advocating  a  right  without  a 
remedy,  by  showing  that  the  Territorial  legislatures  might  lawfully 
and  rightfully  pass  all  laws  and  prescribe  all  judicial  remedies  neces 
sary  for  the  protection  of  property  of  every  description,  slavery  in 
cluded.  The  declaration  that  it  is  an  insult  to  the  American  people 
to  suppose  that  the  people  of  the  Territories,  when  left  free  to  ma 
nage  their  own  affairs  in  their  own  way,  would  be  guilty  of  "  legisla 
tive  robbery,"  would  confiscate  private  property,  seize  it  in  mere 
spite,  etc.,  was  deemed  a  necessary  expedient  for  the  purpose  of 
proving  that  the  people  might  safely  be  trusted  to  furnish  the  pro 
tection  and  provide  the  remedies  without  which  slaves  could  not  be 
held  and  slave  property  protected  in  the  Territories  under  the  laws 
of  other  States. 

******* 

Turning  from  Judge  Black  to  Dr.  Gwin,  it  is  but  respectful  to  say  a 
few  words  upon  his  letter,  which  illuminated  the  columns  of  the  cen 
tral  organ  of  my  assailants  the  day  previous  to  Judge  Black's  rejoin 
der.  The  identity  of  language,  thought,  and  style,  which  pervades 
the  two  productions,  while  rejecting  the  idea  that  they  could  have 
been  written  with  the  same  pen,  furnishes  conclusive  evidence  that 
great  men  will  think  alike  when  in  the  same  vein.  For  example — 

Dr.  Gwin  says : 

"  The  difference  BETWEEN  MR.  DOUGLAS  AND  THE  DEMOCRATIC  PARTY,  sus 
tained  by  this  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  is  this," 
etc.,  etc. 

Judge  Black  says : 

"  The  whole  dispute  (as  far  as  it  is  a  doctrinal  dispute)  BETWEEN  >fR.  DOUG 
LAS  AND  TUB  DEMOCRATIC  PARTY  lies  substantially  in  these  two  propositions,"  etc., 
etc. 

This  coincidence,  without  wearying  the  reader  with  other  exami 
pies,  will  suffice  to  show  the  unity  of  purpose  and  harmony  of  design 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  235 

with  which  ray  assailants  pursue  me.  To  separate  "Mr.  Douglas" 
from  the  "  Democratic  party  "  seems  to  he  the  patriotic  end  to  which 
they  all  aim.  They  may  as  well  make  up  their  minds  to  helieve,  if 
they  have  not  already  been  convinced  of  the  fact  hy  the  hitter  experi 
ence  of  the  last  two  years,  that  the  thing  cannot  ~be  done.  I  gave 
them  notice,  at  the  initial  point  of  this  crusade,  that  no  man  or  set  of 
men  on  earth,  save  one,  could  separate  me  from  the  Democratic 
party;  and  as  I  was  that  one,  and  the  only  one  who  had  the  power, 
I  did  not  intend  to  do  it  myself  nor  permit  it  to  be  done  by  others ! 

At  this  point  (N"ov.  7),  Mr.  Douglas  was  forced  to  stop 
writing  by  a  seve  reattack  of  inflammatory  rheumatism,  which 
soon  prostrated  him  with  a  dangerous  illness,  from  which  he 
was  not  expected  at  one  time  to  recover.  In  a  moment  of 
consciousness  he  directed  the  unfinished  manuscript  to  bo 
taken  to  the  printer,  with  a  note  which  concludes  as  follows  : 

"  I  am  too  feeble,  however,  to  add  more.  Here  let  the  controversy 
close  for  the  present,  and  perhaps  for  ever." 


THE    CHASE    AND    TJRUMBULL    AMENDMENT. 

We  cannot  close  this  chapter  without  referring  to  "  the 
record  "  to  which  Mr.  Douglas  alludes  in  his  brief  "  note  " 
as  wishing  to  comment  on  in  reply  to  Mr.  Gwin.  It  will 
be  found  in  the  "  Congressional  Globe "  of  the  First 
Session  of  the  thirty-third  Congress,  vol.  xxviii.  It  com 
pletely  exposes  the  attempted  trickery  of  the  Chase  amend 
ment.  It  shows  what  the  Senate  regarded  as  the  true 
meaning  of  that  clause  in  the  Kansas  Nebraska  Bill  which 
left  the  people  of  the  Territories  perfectly  free  "to  form  and 
regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,"  and 
that  that  meaning  was,  in  the  language  of  Senator  Badger, "  an 
unrestricted  and  unreserved  reference  to  the  Territorial 
authorities  or  the  people  themselves  to  determine  upon  the 
question  of  slavery." 

After  the  appearance  of  the  Harper  article,  Mr.  Gwin  of 
California  endeavored  to  produce  the  impression  that  neither 


236  THE      LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

Mr.  Douglas  nor  other  senators  understood,  when  the  Kansas 
Nebraska  Bill  was  before  them,  that  the  people  of  the  Terri 
tories  could  legislate  on  the  subject  of  slavery  during  the 
Territorial  condition ;  and  that  had  senators  so  understood 
the  bill,  it  would  have  destroyed  the  measure  ;  and  further, 
that  Mr.  Douglas,  if  he  took  a  different  view  of  the  bill  from 
that,  acted  in  bad  faith  to  the  Senate  and  the  country  in  not 
saying  so  "  before  the  bill  became  a  law." 

The  records  of  Congress  show  the  very  reverse  of  this  to  be 
the  fact.  The  record  shows  that  both  Mr.  Douglas  and  the 
Democratic  as  well  as  other  senators  understood  the  Kansas 
Nebraska  Bill  to  mean  that  the  people  of  the  Territories, 
while  in  the  Territorial  condition,  could  legislate  on  slavery 
as  on  any  other  domestic  affair.  It  shows,  also,  that  both 
Mr.  Chase's  amendment  and  Mr.  Trumbull's  amendment 
were  legislative  tricks,  gotten  up  for  political  effect  outside 
of  Congress. 

As  the  Kansas  Nebraska  Bill  stood  before  Mr.  Chase 
offered  his  amendment,  it  read  : 

It  being  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  this  act  not  to  legislate 
slavery  into  any  Territory  or  State,  nor  to  exclude  it  therefrom,  but 
to  leave  the  people  therein  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their 
domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitu 
tion  of  the  United  [States. 

Mr.  Chase's  amendment  proposed  to  add  these  words : 

Under  which  the  people  of  the  Territory,  through  their  appropri 
ate  representatives,  may,  if  they  see  fo,  prohibit  the  existence  of  da- 
very  therein. 

Mr.  Chase  made  a  brief  speech  in  support  of  his  amend 
ment,  in  the  course  of  which  he  said  : 

After  I  have  obtained  a  vote  upon  this  question,  I  shall  want  to 
know,  and  if  no  other  senator  shall  do  it,  I  will  move  amendments 
calculated  to  ascertain,  whether  it  be  intended  to  give  the  principle 
of  non-intervention  asserted  by  the  bill  full  scope.  If  it  is  to  be 
adopted,  I  want  to  gee  it  adopted  and  fully  carried  out. 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  237 

MR.  PRATT  said  :  Mr.  President,  the  principle  which  the  senator 
from  Ohio  adopts  as  the  principle  of  his  amendment,  is  that  the  ques 
tion  shall  be  left  entirely  and  exclusively  to  the  people  whether  they 
will  prohibit  slavery  or  not.  Now,  for  the  purpose  of  testing  the  sin 
cerity  of  the  senator,  and  for  the  purpose  of  deducing  the  principle  of 
his  amendment  correctly,  I  propose  to  amend  it  by  inserting  after  the 
word  "  prohibit  "  the  words  a  or  introduce,"  so  that  if  my  amend 
ment  be  adopted,  and  the  amendment  of  the  senator  from  Ohio  as  so 
amended  be  introduced  as  part  of  the  bill,  the  principle  which  he 
says  he  desires  to  have  tested  will  be  inserted  in  the  bill — that  the 
people  of  the  Territories  shall  have  power  to  prohibit  or  introduce 
slavery  as  they  may  see  proper.  I  suppose  the  question  will  be  taken 
on  the  amendment  which  I  offer  to  the  amendment. 

ME.  SEWAED. — Is  an  amendment  to  an  amendment  to  an  amend 
ment  in  order? 

MR.  CHASE. — The  amendment  which  I  offered  is  an  amendment  to 
an  amendment. 

THE  PRESIDING  OFFICER. — The  amendment  of  the  senator  from 
Maryland  is  not  now  in  order. 

ME.  PRATT. — Perhaps  the  senator  from  Ohio  will  accept  it. 

ME.  CHASE,  in  the  course  of  his  reply,  said  :  Now,  sir,  I  desire  to 
have  the  sense  of  the  Senate  on  the  question,  whether  the  Territorial 
legislatures  to  which  you  propose  to  refer  tliis  great  question — vital 
to  the  future  destiny  of  the  people  who  are  to  emigrate  into  these 
Territories — can,  subject  to  the  Constitution,  protect  themselves,  if 
they  see  fit  to  do  so,  from  slavery.  The  senator  from  Maryland,  Mr. 
Pratt,  has  proposed  an  amendment  to  my  amendment.  I  cannot 
accept  it,  but  it  will  be  entirely  within  the  power  of  the  Senate  to 
agree  to  his  if  they  see  fit  to  do  so. 

MR.  SHIELDS. — If  the  honorable  senator  will  permit,  I  will  suggest 
to  him,  if  he  wishes  to  test  that  proposition,  to  put  the  converse  as 
suggested  by  the  honorable  senator  from  Maryland,  and  then  it  will 
be  a  fair  proposition.  Let  the  senator  from  Ohio  accept  the  amend 
ment  of  the  senator  from  Maryland  for  the  purpose  of  testing  the 
question. 

MR.  CHASE* — I  was  about  to  state  why  1  could  not  accept  the 
amendment  of  the  senator  from  Maryland.  I  have  no  objection  that 
the  vote  shall  be  taken  on  it,  and  it  is  probable  that  it  would  receive 
the  sanction  of  a  majority  here,  but  with  iny  views  of  the  Constitu 
tion,  I  cannot  vote  lor  it.  I  do  not  believe  that  a  Territorial  legis 
lature,  though  it  may  have  power  to  protect  the  people  against 
slavery,  is  constitutionally  competent  to  introduce  it. 

Senator  Badger,  of  North  Carolina,  took  Mr.  Chase  in 
hand,  and  exposed  the  insincerity  of  the  Ohio  senator,  and 
also  told  what  was  the  true  meaning  of  the,  bill.  He  said  : 

Mr.  President,  I  have  understood,  1  iiud,  correctly  the  purport  ol 


238       THE  LIFE  AND   SPEECHES  OF 

the  amendment  offered  by  the  honorable  senator  from  Ohio.  The 
purposes  of  the  amendment,  and  the  effect  of  the  amendment,  if 
adopted  by  the  Senate,  and  standing  as  it  does,  are  clear  and  obvious. 
Tlie  effect  of  the  amendment,  and  the  design  of  the  amendment,  are 
to  overrule  and  subvert  tlie  very  proposition  introduced  into  the  l>ill 
upon  the  motion  of  the  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Territories, 
(Mr.  Douglas.)  Is  not  that  clear?  The  position,  as  it  stands,  is  an 
unrestricted  and  unreserved  reference  to  the  Territorial  authorities, 
or  the  people  themselves,  to  determine  upon  the  question  of  slavery  ; 
and,  therefore,  by  the  very  terms,  as  well  as  by  the  obvious  meaning 
and  legal  operations  of  that  amendment  (of  Mr.  Pratt),  TO  ENABLE 

THEM  EITHER  TO  EXCLUDE  OE  TO  INTEODUCE  OE  TO  ALLOW  SLAVEET. 

If,  therefore,  the  amendment  proposed  by  the  senator  from  Ohio 
were  appended  to  the  bill  in  the  connection  in  which  he  introduces 
it,  the  necessary  and  inevitable  effect  of  it  would  lie  to  control  and 
limit  the  language  which  the  Senate  had  just  put  into  the  lill,  and  to 
give  it  this  construction,  that  though  Congress  leaves  them  to  regu 
late  their  own  domestic  institutions  as  they  please,  yet  in  regard  to 
the  subject  matter  of  slavery,  the  power  is  confined  to  the  exclusion  or 
prohibition  of  it.  I  say  this  is  both  the  legal  effect  and  the  manifest 
design  of  the  amendment.  The  legal  effect  is  obvious  upon  the 
statement ;  the  design  is  obvious  upon  the  refusal  of  the  gentleman 
to  incorporate  in  his  amendment  what  was  suggested  by  my  honor 
able  friend  from  Maryland,  the  propriety  and  fairness  of  which  were 

instantly  seen  by  my  friend  from  Illinois  (Mr.  Shields.) 

********** 

I  have  no  hesitation,  therefore,  in  saying  that  I  shall  vote  against 
the  amendment  of  the  senator  from  Ohio.  The  clause  as  it  stands 
is  ample.  It  submits  the  whole  authority  to  the  Territory  to  deter 
mine  for  itself.  That  in  my  judgment  is  the  place  where  it  ought  to 
be  put.  If  the  people  of  these  Territories  choose  to  exclude  slavery,  so 
far  from  considering  it  a  wrong  done  to  me  or  to  my  constituents,  1 
shall  not  complain  of  it.  It  is  their  own  business" 


The  question  being  taken  by  yeas  and  nays  on  the  amend 
ment  of  Mr.  Chase,  it  resulted  yeas  10,  nays  36. 

YEAS — Messrs.  Chase,  Dodge  of  Wis.,  Fessenden,  Fish,  Foote, 
Hamlin,  Seward,  Smith,  Sumner  and  Wade— 10. 

NATS — Messrs.  Adams,  Atchison.  Badger,  Bell,  Benjamin,  Brod- 
liead,  Brown,  Butler,  Clay,  Clayton,  Dawson,  Dixou,  Dodge  of  Iowa, 
Douglas,  Evans,  Fitzpatrick,  Gwin,  Houston,  Hunter,  Johnson,  Jones 
of  Iowa,  Jones  of  Tennessee,  Mason,  Morton,  Norris,  Petti t,  Pratt, 
Rusk,  Sebastian,  Shields,  Slidell,  Stuart,  Toucey,  Walker,  Weller  and 
Williams — 30. 

And  so  the  amendment  was  rejected.     It  will  be  observed 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  230 

that  Dr.  Gwin,  who  quotes  Mr.  Douglas'  vote  against  the 
Chase  amendment  as  conclusive  evidence  that  the  Nebraska 
Bill  was  not  intended  to  confer  on  the  Territorial  legislature 
the  power  of  introducing  or  excluding  slavery,  was  present 
participating  in  these  proceedings,  without  uttering  one 
word  of  dissent  or  disapprobation  of  the  speeches  of  Messrs. 
Pratt,  Shields  and  Badger,  when  the  latter  declared  that  the 
bill  as  it  stood  without  the  Chase  amendment,  "  submits  the 
whole  authority  to  the  Territorial  legislature  to  determine 
for  itself,"  "  and  that  if  the  people  of  these  Territories  choose 
to  exclude  slavery,  so  far  from  my  considering  it  a  wrong 
done  to  me  or  my  constituents,  I  shall  not  complain  of  it — it 
is  their  own  business." 

The  reader  will  doubtless  be  curious  to  know  why  it  hap 
pened  that  so  many  of  the  senators  who  participated  in  the 
removal  of  Mr.  Douglas  from  the  chairmanship  of  the  Com 
mittee  on  Territories  for  construing  the  Nebraska  Bill  in  the 
same  manner  as  Mr.  Badger  construed  it  the  day  before  it 
received  their  votes,  could  have  remained  silent  in  their 
places  without  one  word  of  dissent  or  protest. 

The  Trumbull  proposition  referred  to  by  Dr.  Gwin,  was 
offered  as  an  amendment  to  the  bill  for  the  admission  of 
Kansas  into  the  Union  as  a  State,  two  years  after  the  passage 
of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act,  and  was  rejected  solely  upon  the 
ground  that  it  was  irrelevant  to  the  bill  for  the  admission  of 
a  State,  and  not  because  it  did  not  declare  the  true  intent 
and  meaning  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act. 

It  was  in  the  following  words : 

And  le  it  further  enacted : — 

That  the  provision  in  the  act  "to  organize  the  Territories  of 
Kansas  and  Nebraska,"  which  declares  it  to  be  "  the  true  intent 
and  meaning  of  said  act  not  to  legislate  slavery  into  any  Territory 
or  State,  or  to  exclude  it  therefrom,  but  to  leave  the  people 
thereof  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  insti 
tutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,"  was  intended  to  and  does  confer  upon  or  leave 


240  THE     LIFE     AND      SPEECHES     OF 

to  the  people  of  the  Territory  of  Kansas  full  power  at  any  time 
through  its  Territorial  legislature  to  exclude  slavery  from  said  Ter 
ritory,  or  to  recognize  or  regulate  it  therein. 

The  official  report  of  the  proceedings  on  this  amendment 
(see  App.  to  "Cong.  Globe,"  July  2d,  1856)  shows  that  this 
amendment  was  discussed  by  Senators  Benjamin,  Trmnbull, 
Fessenden,  Cass,  Douglas,  Bigler,  Toucey,  Hale,  Seward  and 
Bayard,  and  that  no  one  of  them  denied  or  intimated  that  the 
amendment  did  not  declare  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of 
the  original  act,  and  that  those  who  opposed  it  did  so  upon 
the  ground  that  it  was  irrelevant  to  the  bill  under  con 
sideration. 

MR.  CASS  said:  Now,  in  respect  to  myself,  I  suppose  the  Senate 
knows  clearly  my  views.  I  believe  the  original  act  gave  the  Territo 
rial  legislature  of  Kansas  full  power  to  exclude  or  allow  slavery. 
.  .  .  .  This  being  my  view,  I  shall  vote  against  the  amendment. 

MR.  DOUGLAS  said:  The  reading  of  the  amendment  inclines  my 
mind  to  the  belief,  that  in  its  legal  effect  it  is  precisely  the  same  with 
the  original  act,  and  almost  in  the  words  of  that  act.  Hence,  I  should 
have  no  hesitancy  in  voting  for  it,  except  that  it  is  putting  oil  this 
bill  a  matter  which  does  not  belong  to  it. 

MR.  BIGLER  said :  Now,  sir,  I  am  not  prepared  to  say  what  the 
intention  of  the  Congress  of  1854  was,  because  I  was  not  a  member 
of  that  Congress.  I  will  not  vote  on  this  amendment,  because  I 
should  not  know  that  my  vote  was  expressing  the  truth.  I  agree  too, 
with  the  senator  from  Michigan  (Mr.  Cass),  and  the  senator  from 
Illinois  (Mr.  Douglas),  that  this  is  substantially  the  law  as  it  now 
exists. 

ME.  TOTTCEY  said :  Now,  I  object  to  this  amendment  as  superflu 
ous,  nugatory,  worse  than  that,  as  giving  grounds  for  misrepresenta 
tion.  It  leaves  the  subject  precisely  where  it  is  left  in  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  Bill. 

MR.  BAYARD  said  :  I  have  an  objection  to  the  amendment  proposed 
by  the  honorable  senator  from  Illinois  (Mr.  Trumbull),  which  to  me 
would  be  perfectly  sufficient,  independent  of  any  other  :  and  that  is, 
it  is  nothing  more  or  less  than  an  attempt  to  give  a  judicial  exposition 
by  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  to  the  Constitution  ;  and  I  hold 
that  they  have  no  right  to  usurp  judicial  power. 

The  question  being  taken  by  yeas  and  nays  on  the  amend 
ment,  resulted,  ayes  11,  nays  34,  as  follows  : 


STEPHEN     A.    DOUGLAS.  24:1 

— Messrs.  Allen,  Bell,  of  K  H.,  Collamer,  Durkee,  Fessen- 
den,  Foote,  Foster,  Hale,  Seward,  Trumbull  and  Wade — 11. 

1ST  AYS — Messrs.  Adams,  Bayard,  Benjamin,  Biggs,  Bigler,  Bright, 
Brodhead,  Brown,  Oass,  Clay,  Crittenden,  Dodge,  Douglas,  Evans, 
Fitzpatrick,  Geyer,  Hunter,  Iverson,  Johnson,  Jones,  of  Iowa,  Mai- 
lory,  Mason,  Pratt,  Pugh,  Keid,  Sebastian,  Slidell,  Stuart,  Thompson, 
of  Kentucky,  Toombs,  Toucey,  Weller,  Wright  and  Yulee— 34. 

So  the  amendment  was  rejected. 

Upon  this  transcript  from  the  records  we  have  three  com 
ments  to  make,  which  cannot  fail  to  impress  the  reader. 

First,  That  during  this  whole  debate  no  senator  pretended 
that  Mr.  Trumbull's  amendment  did  not  declare  the  true 
intent  and  meaning  of  the  Nebraska  Act,  according  to  its 
legal  effect  and  plain  reading. 

Second,  That  every  senator  who  spoke  against  the  amend 
ment,  assigned  as  the  sole  reason  for  his  vote,  either  that  it 
was  irrelevant  or  an  attempt  by  Congress  to  usurp  judicial 
power. 

Third,  That  those  senators  who  now  arraign  and  condemn 
Mr.  Douglas  as  too  unsound  to  be  chairman  of  the  Terri 
torial  Committee  for  no  other  reason  than  that  he  now  con 
strues  the  Kansas-INT ebraska  Act  precisely  as  he  then  did, 
listened  to  this  debate  without  one  word  of  dissent, 
and  by  silence  have  acquiesced  in  the  construction 
which  the  author  of  the  bill  distinctly  affirmed  in  their 
presence.  Indeed,  it  may  be  said  that  this  construction 
of  the  act  was  unanimously  affirmed  by  the  Senate,  on  this 
occasion — the  Republicans  assenting  to  it  by  their  votes  in 
favor  of  the  amendment,  and  all  the  others  by  their  acqui 
escence  in  the  reasons  assigned  by  Messrs.  Cass,  Douglas, 
Bayard,  Bigler  and  Toucey  for  voting  against  it.  If,  however, 
these  senators  shall  attempt  to  escape  the  conclusion  under 
cover  of  the  reasons  assigned  by  Mr.  Bayard,  that  the 
amendment  was  "  nothing  more  or  less  than  an  attempt  to 
give  a  judicial  exposition,- by  the  Congress  of  the  United 

11 


24:2  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

States,  to  the  Constitution,"  and  "  that  they  have  no  right 
to  usurp  judicial  power,"  with  what  consistency  can  these 
gentlemen  meet  in  secret  caucus  and  propose  resolutions,  to 
be  offered  in  open  Senate,  as  a  platform  for  the  Charleston 
Convention ;  thus  "  giving  a  judicial  exposition,"  by  the 
caucus  and  the  Senate,  to  the  Constitution,  on  the  identical 
point  which  Mr.  Bayard  denounced  as  "a  usurpation  of 
judicial  power,"  and  in  the  justice  of  which  denunciation 
they  all  appeared  at  the  time  to  acquiesce  ?  Would  it  not 
be  well,  at  the  next  meeting  of  the  senatorial  caucus,  to  give 
a  satisfactory  answer  to  this  inquiry  ? 


STEPHEN     A.    DOUGLAS.  243 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

PROTECTION   OF    STATES   PROM   INVASION — THE   SENATORIAL 
CAUCUS. 

Great  Speech  of  Mr.  Douglas  on  the  Harper's  Ferry  Invasion — Anxiety  to 
hear  him — His  Speeches  in  Reply  to  Senators  Fessenden,  Jeff.  Davis, 
and  Seward — The  Caucus  of  Senators — Their  Utopian  Platform. 

THE  first  session  of  the  36th  Congress  met  on  the  first  Mon 
day  in  December,  1859.  The  great  practical  measure  of  the 
session  was  the  proposition  of  Mr.  Douglas,  embraced  in  the 
resolution  which  he  offered  on  the  16th  of  January,  1860, 
instructing  the  Judiciary  Committee  to  report  a  bill  to  pro 
tect  each  State  from  invasion  by  people  of  other  States. 

A  day  or  two  before  the  introduction  of  this  resolution,  a 
sharp  passage  at  arms  took  place  in  the  Senate  between  Mr. 
Douglas  and  Messrs.  Clay,  Jeff.  Davis,  and  Green,  which  is 
thus  described  by  the  correspondent  of  the  "  New  York 
Herald :" 

MR.  PUGH,  of  Ohio,  a  sharp,  keen,  and  plucky  debater,  and  the 
right-hand  man  of  Mr.  Douglas,  brought  the  controversy  to  a  focus. 
There  was  a  good  deal  of  cross-firing  and  sharp-shooting  against  the 
doctrines  and  speeches  of  the  Little  Giant,  from  Green,  Iverson, 
Clay,  Davis,  Gwin,  and  other  southsiders,  till  at  length  the  Little 
Giant  himself  was  brought  to  the  floor. 

He  complained  of  ill-health ;  but  he  never  looked  better  in  his  life 

never  appeared  fresher  in  the  ring,  and  never  acquitted  himself 

more  to  the  admiration  of  his  friends.  He  was  like^a  stag  at  bay, 
and  right  and  left  he  dashed  among  his  pursuers.  It  is  useless  hero 
to  repeat  this  branch  of  the  debate.  It  was  the  feature  of  the  day 
and  of  the  session. 


244  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

Mr.  Douglas  announced  to-day  that  he  will  abide  by  the  decision 
of  the  convention,  for  the  sake  of  the  Democratic  party,  though  he 
will  not  accept  its  nomination  except  upon  the  doctrine  of  popular 
sovereignty,  as  enunciated  in  the  Cincinnati  platform. 

EXTRACTS  FHOM  THE  DEBATE. 

This  was  Mr.  Douglas's  first  appearance  in  the  Senate  after 
his  severe  and  protracted  illness,  and  it  was  thought  rather 
ungenerous  in  these  senators  to  make  a  combined  and  con 
certed  attack  upon  him  under  the  circumstances.  It  is  con 
ceded,  however,  by  all  who  listened  to  the  debate,  that  he 
never  bore  himself  more  gallantly  or  came  out  of  a  contest 
more  successfully.  The  objects  of  the  assaults  upon  him  were 
to  justify  his  removal  from  the  Committee  on  Territories, 
upon  the  ground  that  he  held  opinions  incompatible  with  the 
Democratic  creed.  We  give  several  extracts  from  this  im 
portant  debate. 

In  reply  to  Mr.  Davis  of  Mississippi,  Mr.  Douglas  said : 

I  have  never  complained  of  my  removal  from  the  chairmanship 
of  the  Committee  on  Territories,  and  I  never  intended  to  allude  to 
that  subject  in  this  body ;  but  I  do  assert  that  the  record  proves  that 
the  Senate  knew  for  eleven  years  that  I  held  the  identical  opinions 
which  I  expressed  in  my  Freeport  speech,  and  which  are  now  alleged 
as  the  cause  of  my  removal ;  and  during  that  period,  with  a  full 
knowledge  of  those  opinions,  which  were  repeated  over  and  over 
again  in  this  body,  within  the  hearing  of  every  member  of  the  Se 
nate,  I  was,  by  the  unanimous  vote  of  the  body,  made  chairman  of 
that  committee,  being  reflected  each  year  for  eleven  years.  Tho 
cause  now  assigned  for  my  removal  is  that  I  hold  the  identical 
opinions  to-day  that  I  held  and  repeatedly  expressed  during  that 
whole  period.  If  this  be  the  true  state  of  the  facts,  what  does  it 
prove  ?  Simply,  that  those  who  removed  me  changed  at  the  end  of 
the  eleven  years,  and  I  was  not  sound  because  I  did  not  change  aa 
suddenly  as  they.  My  only  offence  consists  in  fidelity  to  the  princi 
ples  that  I  had  avowed  during  that  whole  period.  If  at  the  end  of 
that  time  my  opinions  were  incompatible  with  those  of  a  majority, 


STEPHEN      A.     DOUGLAS.  245 

it  shows  that  the  majority  had  changed  their  policy  but  that  I  had 
not  changed  my  opinions. 

Mr.  Green  answered  by  charging  that  Mr.  Douglas,  in 
1856,  had  declared  in  the  Senate  that  the  question,  in  respect 
to  the  extent  of  the  power  of  a  Territorial  legislature  over 
the  subject  of  slavery,  was  a  judicial  question,  which  could 
be  alone  authoritatively  determined  by  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Douglas,  in  reply,  said  : 

In  1856  I  did  say  it  was  a  judicial  question,  and  I  said  it  over  and 
over  again  hefore  1856.  I  have  said  it  since  that  time.  I  declared 
in  my  Illinois  speeches  that  it  was  a  judicial  question,  I  have  declared 
the  same  thing  in  every  publication  I  have  made  during  the  last 
year.  I  assert,  now,  that  it  is  a  judicial  question.  The  point  is  that 
for  years  it  was  no  want  of  soundness  in  principle  that  I  held  one 
side  of  that  judicial  question  while  others  held  the  opposite.  I  assert 
that  the  Senate  did  know  which  side  of  the  judicial  question  I  held. 
But  I  have  always  said  that  I  would  abide  the  decisions  of  the  Su 
preme  Court,  not  only  as  a  matter  of  policy  but  from  considerations 
of  duty.  I  take  the  law  as  expounded  by  the  Supreme  Court,  I  re 
ceive  the  Dred  Scott  decision  as  an  authoritative  exposition  ;  but  I 
deny  that  the  point  now  under  consideration  has  been  decided  in  the 
Dred  Scott  case.  There  is  no  one  fact  in  that  case  upon  which  it 
could  have  arisen.  The  lawyers  engaged  on  each  side  never  dreamt 
that  it  did  arise  in  the  case.  It  is  offensive  and  injurious  to  the 
reputation  of  the  court  to  say  that  they  decided  a  great  question  which 
had  been  the  subject  of  agitation  to  the  extent  of  convulsing  the 
whole  country,  when  it  did  not  arise  in  the  case,  and  when  it  was 
not  argued  by  counsel.  Sir,  it  would  prove  the  court  unworthy  to 
decide  the  great  question  in  a  civilized  country  if  it  would  take  cog 
nizance  of  a  case  when  there  was  no  fact  upon  the  record  upon  which 
it  could  arise,  when  the  counsel  on  either  side  never  dreamt  that 
it  was  in  issue,  when  there  was  no  argument  on  it,  and  foreclose  the 
right  of  self-government  to  thousands  and  hundreds  of  thousands  of 
people  without  a  hearing.  But  one  word  more :  I  assert,  and  the 
debates  will  prove,  that  the  understanding  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska 


246  THE      LIFE     AND      SPEECHES     OF 

Bill  was  that  this  was  a  judicial  question  to  be  decided  when  it 
should  arise  on  a  Territorial  enactment. 

The  speech  of  the  senator  from  Ya.  (Mr.  Hunter),  shows  clearly 
that  it  was  to  arise  on  a  Territorial  enactment,  and  all  the  speeches 
oi  all  of  us  show  that  it  was  in  that  way  and  at  that  time  that  this 
judicial  question  was  expected  to  arise  and  be  decided.  The  under 
standing  was  that  when  a  Territorial  legislature  passed  an  act  on 
this  subject,  of  which  any  man  complained,  he  should  be  able  to 
bring  the  matter  before  the  Supreme  Court ;  and  to  facilitate  the 
court  in  getting  jurisdiction,  we  amended  the  bill  by  putting  in  a 
clause  providing  that  a  case  affecting  the  title  to  slaves  might  be 
taken  up  to  the  Supreme  Court  without  reference  to  the  amount  in 
volved.  That  clause  was  inserted  in  order  to  get  this  judicial  ques 
tion  before  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.  How  ?  On  a 
Territorial  enactment,  and  nobody  ever  dreamt  that  the  court  was 
going  in  a  decision  on  a  case  which  did  not  affect  that  question  to 
decide  this  point  without  argument  and  without  notice,  and  preclude 
the  rights  of  the  people  without  allowing  them  to  be  heard.  Whenever 
a  Territorial  legislature  shall  pass  an  act  divesting  or  attempting  to 
divest  or  impair  or  prejudice  the  right  to  slave  property,  and  a  case 
under  that  act  shall  be  brought  before  the  Supreme  Court,  I  will 
abide  by  the  decision  and  help  in  good  faith  to  carry  it  out. 

Mr.  Clay,  of  Alabama,  was  the  next  to  assail  Mr.  Douglas 
and  to  impeach  the  soundness  of  his  principles  and  the  con 
sistency  of  his  course  upon  the  slavery  question.  In  reply 
to  him,  Mr.  Douglas  said : 

I  say  to  the  gentleman  from  Alabama,  that  while  I  have  sought  no 
sympathy  and  desire  no  sympathy,  I  shrink  from  no  vindication  of 
myself.  I  leave  the  public  to  judge  whether  there  has  not  been 
rather  a  doubling  of  teams  on  me  every  time  I  have  engaged  in 
debate  for  the  last  two  years.  After  fighting  an  unholy  alliance  in 
my  own  State,  between  federal  officeholders  and  abolitionists,  and 
triumphing  over  them,  did  I  come  here  at  the  last  session  and  make 
any  parade  of  that  fact?  No,  sir,  I  remained  silent.  I  made  no 
vindication  of  myself;  I  made  no  complaint  of  my  removal  from  the 
chair  of  the  Territorial  Committee ;  I  never  alluded  to  it,  and  the 
matter  would  never  have  passed  my  lips  if  it  had  not  been  thrust  in 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  247 

my  face  in  debate  in  the  Senate  to-day.  The  discussion  of  last  year 
was  brought  on  by  others  and  not  by  me,  and  yet  we  have  been  told 
by  a  senator  (Mr.  Gwin)  while  making  a  speech  in  the  country,  that 
those  who  removed  me  from  the  head  of  that  committee  expected  me 
to  defend  myself,  and  complained  that  I  waited  until  the  end  of  the 
session,  after  I  had  been  tried,  condemned  and  executed  in  my  ab 
sence.  Sir,  I  had  no  defence  to  make.  I  scorn  to  make  any  defence. 
T  stood  conscious  of  the  rectitude  of  my  own  motives  and  the  correct 
ness  of  my  own  actions.  I  claimed  the  right  to  hold  and  vindicate 
my  own  opinions,  and  to  impeach  no  other  man's  conduct  or  the 
integrity  of  his  purpose.  I  yield  to  every  senator  the  right  of  differ 
ing  from  me,  and  I  never  make  a  test  on  him  for  doing  so. 

****  **** 

I  have  but  a  word  more  to  say  now,  and  that  is  on  another  point. 
The  senator  from  Alabama  tells  me  that  if  he  had  not  supposed  that 
I  had  changed  my  opinions,  he  would  never  have  extended  to  me  the 
right  hand  of  fellowship  as  a  Democrat.  Well,  sir,  I  do  not  know 
that  my  Democracy  would  have  suffered  much  if  he  never  had.  I 
am  willing  to  compare  records  with  him  as  a  Democrat.  I  never 
make  speeches,  proclaiming  to  the  world  that  if  I  cannot  get  my 
man  nominated  I  will  bolt  .the  convention  and  break  up  the  Demo 
cratic  party,  and  then  talk  about  the  right  hand  of  Democratic 
fellowship.  Sir.  that  senator  has  placed  himself  beyond  the  pale  of 
Democratic  fellowship,  by  the  pronunciamento  that  he  will  not  abide 
the  decision  of  the  National  Convention,  if  the  speeches,  which  1  see 
attributed  to  him  in  the  newspapers,  are  true.  I  do  not  understand 
this  thing  of  belonging  to  an  organization,  going  into  a  convention 
and  abiding  by  the  result  if  you  win  and  bolting  if  you  lose.  I  never 
thought  that  it  was  deemed  fair  dealing  in  any  profession.  If  you 
take  the  winnings  when  you  gain,  I  always  thought  you  had  to  pay 
your- bets  when  you  lost :  a  man  who  tells  me  and  the  world  that  he 
only  goes  into  a  convention  to  abide  the  result  in  the  event  of  its 
deciding  in  his  favor,  has  no  right  to  talk  about  extending  the  hand 
of  Democratic  fellowship.  Now,  sir,  I  have  the  kindest  feelings 
toward  the  gentleman  personally.  He  has  a  right  to  differ  from 
me ;  he  has  a  right  to  bolt  the  Charleston  Convention  ;  he  has  a  right 
to  proclaim  to  the  world  beforehand  that  he  means  to  do  so  ;  but  ho 
has  no  right  to  go  into  the  convention  unless  he  intends  to  abide  tha 


24:8  THE     LIFE     AND      SPEECHES     OF 

reuult.  He  has  no  right  to  claim  that  he  belongs  to  the  convention 
and  say  that  he  will  bolt  the  nominee;  and  hence  I  say  to  that 
senator,  with  all  kindness,  that  if  he  does  not  extend  to  me  the  right 
hand  of  Democratic  fellowship  I  shall  survive  the  stroke.  If  I  should 
happen  to  be  the  nominee  of  the  Charleston  Convention,  and  he 
should  vote  against  me,  I  am  not  certain  that  it  would  diminish  my 
majority  in  his  own  State.  I  am  not  counting  his  support.  Permit 
me  to  say  to  that  senator  that  it  will  be  time  enough  to  threaten  that 
he  will  not  vote  for  me  when  I  ask  him  to  do  it.  Permit  me  to  say 
further  to  him  that  I  am  doing  quite  as  much  honor  to  him  if  I  con 
sent  to  accept  his  vote,  as  he  will  do  me  by  conferring  it. 

******** 

When  threats  are  made  of  not  extending  the  hand  of  Democratic 
fellowship,  I  should  like  to  understand  who  it  is  that  has  the  right  to 
say  who  is  in  the  party  and  who  not.  I  believe  that  more  than  two- 
thirds  of  the  Democracy  of  the  United  States  are  with  me  on  this 
disputed  point.  James  Buchanan  received  about  eighteen  hundred 
thousand  votes  at  the  last  election,  more  than  twelve  hundred 
thousand  of  them  in  the  free  States,  and  something  over  six  hundred 
thousand  in  the  slaveholding  States,  and  you  have  heard  it  said  by 
the  senator  from  Ohio  to-day,  and  I  believe  it,  that  ninety-nine  out 
of  every  one  hundred  Democrats  in  the  northern  States  agreed  with 
him  and  me  on  this  question.  Then  one-third  of  the  Democratic 
party  are  going  to  read  out  the  remaining  two-thirds.  Your  candidate 
will  have  a  good  chance  of  election  if  you  shall  have  done  it,  will  he 
not  ? 

The  only  importance  attached  to  the  question  of  the  chairmanship 
of  the  Committee  on  Territories  is  this :  heretofore  no  test  has  been 
made  as  to  a  man's  opinions  on  this  judicial  question,  and  hence  I 
could  hold  the  position  of  chairman  by  a  unanimous  vote,  without 
objection  ;  but  now  it  is  made  a  test.  I  do  not  make  it — I  only  resist 
your  test  if  you  make  it  on  me.  While  I  do  not  want  the  chairman 
ship — while  I  have  performed  labor  enough  on  that  committee,  for 
eleven  and  a  half  years,  to  be  anxious  to  get  rid  of  it — yet  the  coun 
try  cannot  fail  to  take  notice  that  my  removal  at  the  end  of  eleven 
years,  is  significant  in  one  of  two  points  of  view.  It  was  either  per 
sonal  or  political.  I  acquit  every  man  of  the  suspicion  that  it  was 
personal.  Then  it  must  have  been  political.  What  does  it  signify  ? 
It  is  a  proclamation  to  the  Senate  that  a  man  holding  tl.e  opinions  I 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  24:9 

do  is  not  sound  enough  to  serve  as  chairman  of  a  committee.  Is  he 
sound  enough  for  a  cabinet  officer,  for  a  district  attorney,  for  a  collec 
tor  of  the  port,  for  a  post-master,  for  a  lighthouse-keeper  ?  All  these 
classes  of  officers  are  now  being  removed,  except  cabinet  officers,  for 
holding  the  same  opinions  as  myself.  If  you  were  to  nominate  for 
the  Presidency  a  man  who  intends  to  pursue  this  prescriptive  policy 
that  every  man  holding  the  opinions  I  do  is  marked  as  a  victim  for 
vengeance  the  moment  your  candidates  are  elected,  what  chance  have 
you  of  electing  them  ?" 

After  a  colloquy  between  Mr.  Davis  and  Mr.  Douglas,  the 
latter  proceeded : 

"  I  seek  no  war  with  any  senator  on  either  side  of  the  chamber, 
and  especially  I  seek  none  on  political  issues  with  Democratic  sena 
tors.  Every  word  I  have  said  has  been  in  defence  of  myself  against 
the  imputation  that  I  had  changed  my  line  of  policy,  which  I  utterly 
deny.  I  did  understand,  and  I  understand  now,  that  when  applica 
tions  are  made  to  the  present  Administration  for  office,  the  question 
of  a  man's  opinion  on  popular  sovereignty  is  asked,  and  the  applicant 
is  proscribed  if  he  agree  with  me  in  opinion.  The  country  under 
stands  therefore  that  if  a  man  representing  this  prescriptive  policy 
is  the  next  President,  every  man  in  the  country  who  holds  tlio 
opinions  of  the  senator  from  Ohio  and  myself  is  to  be  proscribed 
from  every  office,  high  or  low.  Such  is  now  the  case.  Is  any  gen 
tleman  prepared  to  take  the  Charleston  nomination  with  the  under 
standing  that  he  is  to  proscribe  two-thirds  of  the  party,  and  then 
degrade  himself  so  low  as  to  seek  the  votes  of  the  men  whom  he  has 
marked  as  his  victims  ?  If  no  tests  are  to  be  made,  there  can  be 
harmony ;  if  these  tests  are  to  be  made,  one-third  will  not  subdue 
two-thirds.  I  do  not  intend  to  surrender  an  opinion  or  to  try  and 
force  one  upon  any  other  senator  or  citizen.  I  arraign  no  man 
because  of  his  opinions." 


11* 


250  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 


INCIDENTS    OF   THE    GREAT   SPEECH. 

On  Monday,  the  23d  of  January,  the  resolution  submitted 
on  the  16th  instant  having  been  made  the  special  order  for 
that  day,  Mr.  Douglas  addressed  the  Senate  in  its  support. 
It  was  known  in  Washington  for  some  time  previously  that 
he  would  speak  on  that  day,  and  this  fact  drew  to  the  Capitol 
an  immense  concourse  of  people.  It  would  seem  that  the 
mantles  of  Clay  and  Webster  have  fallen  upon  the  shoulders 
of  Douglas,  for  it  is  well  known  that  for  years  past  it  is  only 
necessary  to  say  "Douglas  speaks  to-day,"  in  order  to  have 
the  Senate  chamber  thronged  by  all  the  wit  and  beauty  in 
the  capital.  On  this  occasion,  although  it  was  known  that 
Mr.  Douglas  would  not  begin  to  speak  till  nearly  two  in  the 
afternoon,  yet  as  early  as  ten  in  the  morning,  numerous  groups 
of  people  were  seen  wending  their  way  to  the  Capitol.  At 
eleven,  the  galleries  were  full,  and  the  tide  of  silk  and  satin, 
cambric  and  crinoline,  continued  to  gather  in  the  avenues  and 
lobbies.  Crowds  of  ladies  and  gentlemen  continued  to  pour 
in,  till  at  noon  every  seat  in  the  immense  chamber  was  occu 
pied,  and  all  the  standing-place  jammed.  The  members  of 
the  House  of  Representatives  came  in  almost  in  a  body,  and 
occupied  the  floor.  The  foreign  diplomatic  corps  too,  were 
present  in  full  force.  Never  before  had  there  been  such  a 
scene  in  the  new  chamber. 

Douglas  was  to  speak — not  for  Illinois,  not  for  the  West, 
but  for  the  pacification  of  the  whole  country,  and  the  perpe 
tuity  of  the  Union. 

The  reader  will  comprehend  the  character  of  this  speech 
from  the  subjoined  extracts: 


STEPHEN     A.    DOUGLAS.  251 


INVASION   OF   STATES. 

The  hour  having  arrived  for  the  consideration  of  the  special  order, 
the  Senate  proceeded  to  consider  the  following  resolution,  submitted 
by  Mr.  Douglas  on  the  16th  instant : 

"Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  be  instructed  to  report  a  bill 
for  the  protection  of  each  State  and  Territory  of  the  Union  against  invasion 
by  the  authorities  or  inhabitants  of  any  other  State  or  Territory ;  and  for  the 
suppression  and  punishment  of  conspiracies  or  combinations  in  any  State  or 
Territory  with  intent  to  invade,  assail,  or  molest  the  gov  ernment,  inhabit 
ants,  property,  or  institutions  of  any  other  State  or  Territor  y  of  the  Union." 

ME.  DOUGLAS. — Mr.  President,  on  the  25th  of  November  last,  the 
governor  of  Virginia  addressed  an  official  communication  to  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  in  which  he  said: 

"  I  have  information  from  various  quarters,  upon  which  I  rely,  that  a  con 
spiracy  of  formidable  extent,  in  means  and  numbers,  is  formed  in  Ohio,  Penn 
sylvania,  New  York,  and  other  States,  to  rescue  John  Brown  and  his  associ 
ates,  prisoners  at  Charlestown,  Virginia.  The  information  is  specific  enough 
to  be  reliable 

u  Places  in  Maryland,  Ohio,  and  Pennsylvania,  have  been  occupied  as  depots 
and  rendezvous  by  these  desperadoes,  unobstructed  by  guards  or  otherwise, 
to  invade  this  State,  and  we  are  kept  in  continual  apprehension  of  outrage 
from  fire  and  rapine.  I  apprise  you  of  these  facts  in  order  that  you  may  take 
steps  to  preserve  peace  between  the  States." 

To  this  communication  the  President  of  the  United  States,  on  the 
28th  of  November,  returned  a  reply,  from  which  I  read  the  follow 
ing  sentence: 

"  I  am  at  a  loss  to  discover  any  provision  in  the  Constitution  or  laws  of  the 
United  States  which  would  authorize  me  to  'take  steps 'for  this  purpose." 
[That  is,  to  preserve  the  peace  between  the  States.] 

This  announcement  produced  a  profound  impression  upon  the 
public  mind,  especially  in  the  slaveholding  States.  It  was  generally 
received  and  regarded  as  an  official  and  authoritative  announcement 
that  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  confers  no  power  upon 
the  Federal  Government  to  protect  the  several  States  of  this  Union 
against  invasion  from  the  other  States.  I  shall  not  stop  to  inquire 
whether  the  President  meant  to  declare  that  the  existing  laws  confer 
no  authority  upon  him,  or  that  the  Constitution  empowers  Congress 
to  enact  no  laws  which  would  authorize  the  federal  interposition  to 
protect  the  States  from  invasion;  my  object  is  to  raise  the  inquiry, 
and  to  ask  the  judgment  of  the  Senate  and  of  the  House  of  Kepre- 
sentatives  on  the  question,  whether  it  is  not  within  the  power  of 
Congress,  and  the  duty  of  Congress,  under  the  Constitution,  to  en 
act  all  laws  which  are  necessary  and  proper  for  the  protection  of 


252  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

each  and  every  State  against  invasion,  either  from  foreign  powers  or 

from  any  portion  of  the  United  States. 

****** 

Sir,  what  were  the  causes  which  produced  the  Harper's  Ferry 
outrage  ?  Without  stopping  to  adduce  evidence  in  detail,  I  have  no 
hesitation  in  expressing  my  firm  and  deliberate  conviction  that  the 
Harper's  Ferry  crime  was  the  natural,  logical,  inevitable  result  of 
the  doctrines  and  teachings  of  the  Republican  party,  as  explained 
and  enforced  in  their  platform,  their  partisan  presses,  their 
pamphlets  and  books,  and  especially  in  the  speeches  of  their  leaders 
in  and  out  of  Congress.  (Applause  in  the  galleries.) 

Order  being  restored,  Mr.  Douglas  proceeded : 

1  was  remarking  that  I  considered  this  outrage  at  Harper's  Ferry 
as  the  logical,  natural  consequence  of  the  teachings  and  doctrines  of 
the  Republican  party.  I  am  not  making  this  statement  for  the  pur 
pose  of  crimination  or  partisan  eifect.  I  desire  to  call  the  attention 
of  members  of  that  party  to  a  reconsideration  of  the  doctrines  that 
they  are  in  the  habit  of  enforcing,  with  a  view  to  a  fair  judgment 
whether  they  do  not  lead  directly  to  those  consequences  on  the  part 
of  those  deluded  persons  who  think  that  all  they  say  is  meant  in  real 
earnest,  and  ought  to  be  carried  out.  The  great  principle  that  un 
derlies  the  organization  of  the  Republican  party  is  violent,  irrecon 
cilable,  eternal  warfare  upon  the  institution  of  American  slavery, 
with  the  view  of  its  ultimate  extinction  throughout  the  land ;  sec 
tional  war  is  to  be  waged  until  the  cotton  fields  of  the  South  shall 
be  cultivated  by  free  labor,  or  the  rye  fields  of  New  York  and 
Massachusetts  shall  be  cultivated  by  slave  labor.  In  furtherance  of 
this  article  of  their  creed,  you  find  their  political  organization  not 
only  sectional  in  its  location,  but  one  whose  vitality  consists  in  ap 
peals  to  northern  passion,  northern  prejudice,  northern  ambition 

against  southern  States,  southern  institutions,  and  southern  people. 
****** 

Can  any  man  say  to  us  that  although  this  outrage  has  been  perpe 
trated  at  Harper's  Ferry,  there  is  no  danger  of  its  recurrence  ?  Sir, 
is  not  the  Republican  party  still  embodied,  organized,  sanguine,  con 
fident  of  success,  and  defiant  in  its  pretensions  ?  Does  it  not  now 
hold  and  proclaim  the  same  creed  that  it  did  before  this  invasion  r\ 
It  is  true  that  most  of  its  representatives  here  disavow  the  acts  of 
John  Brown  at  Harper's  Ferry.  lam  glad  that  they  do  so ;  lam 
rejoiced  that  they  have  gone  thus  far  ;  but  I  must  bo  permitted  to 
say  to  them  that  it  is  not  sufficient  that  they  disavow  the  act,  unless 
they  also  repudiate  and  denounce  the  doctrines  and  teachings  which 
produced  the  act.  Those  doctrines  remain  the  same  ;  those  teachings 
are  being  poured  into  the  minds  of  men  throughout  the  country,  by 
means  of  speeches,  and  pamphlets,  and  books,  and  through  partisan 
presses.  The  causes  that  produced  the  Harper's  Ferry  invasion  are 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  253 

now  in  active  operation.  Is  it  true  that  the  people  of  all  the  border 
States  are  required  by  the  Constitution  to  have  their  hands  tied, 
without  the  power  of  self-defence,  and  remain  patient  under  a  threat 
ened  invasion  in  the  day  or  in  the  night  ?  Can  you  expect  people  to 
be  patient,  when  they  dare  not  lie  down  to  sleep  at  night  without 
iirst  stationing  sentinels  around  their  houses  to  see  if  a  band  of  ma 
rauders  and  murderers  are  not  approaching  with  torch  and  pistol  ? 
Sir,  it  requires  more  patience  than  freemen  ever  should  cultivate,  to 
submit  to  constant  annoyance,  irritation  and  apprehension.  If  we 
expect  to  preserve  this  Union,  we  must  remedy,  within  the  Union, 
and  in  obedience  to  the  Constitution,  every  evil  for  which  disunion 
would  furnish  a  remedy. 

Upon  the  conclusion  of  this  speech  Mr.  Fessenden  at 
tempted  to  break  its  force  by  a  violent  partisan  attack  on 
Mr.  Douglas  and  the  Democratic  party  ;  to  which  Mr.  Doug 
las  instantly  replied,  repelling  the  assaults  and  vindicating 
the  position  of  the  Democratic  party  upon  the  slavery  ques 
tion.  We  invite  attention  to  extracts  : 


ME.  DOUGLAS'  KEPLY. 

Si»r,  I  desire  a  law  that  will  make  it  a  crime,  punishable  by  impri 
sonment  in  the  penitentiary,  after  conviction  in  the  United  States 
court,  to  make  a  conspiracy  in  one  State,  against  the  people,  property, 
government,  or  institutions  of  another.  Then  we  shall  get  at  the 
root  of  the  evil.  I  have  no  doubt  that  gentlemen  on  the  other  side 
will  vote  for  a  law  which  pretends  to  comply  with  the  guarantees  of 
the  Constitution,  without  carrying  any  force  or  efficiency  in  its  pro 
visions.  I  have  heard  men  abuse  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law,  and  express 
their  willingness  to  vote  for  amendments  ;  but  when  you  came  to  the 
amendments  which  they  desired  to  adopt,  you  found  they  were  such 
as  would  never  return  a  fugitive  to  his  master.  They  would  go  for 
any  fugitive  slave  law  that  had  a  hole  in  it  big  enough  to  let  the  ne 
gro  drop  through  and  escape;  but  none  that  would  comply  with  the 
obligations  of  the  Constitution.  So  we  shall  find  that  side  of  the 
House  voting  for  a  law  that  will,  in  terms,  disapprove  of  unlawful 
expeditions  against  neighboring  States,  without  being  efficient  in 
affording  protection. 

But  the  senator  says  it  is  a  part  of  the  policy  of  the  northern 
Democracy  to  represent  the  Republicans  as  being  hostile  to  southern 
institutions.  Sir,  it  is  a  part  of  the  policy  of  the  northern  Demo 
cracy,  as  well  as  their  duty,  to  speak  the  truth  on  that  subject.  I  did 
not  suppose  that  any  man  would  have  the  audacity  to  arraign  a  bro 
ther  senator  here  for  representing  the  Republican  party  as  dealing  in 


251  THE     LIFE     AND      SPEECHES     OF 

denunciation  and  insult  of  the  institutions  of  the  South.  Look  to 
your  Philadelphia  platform,  where  you  assert  the  sovereign  power  of 
Congress  over  the  Territories  for  their  government,  and  demand  that 
it  shall  be  exerted  against  those  twin  relics  of  barbarism — polygamy 
and  slavery. 

******** 

I  have  said  and  repeat  that  this  question  of  slavery  is  one  of 
climate,  of  political  economy,  of  self-interest,  not  a  question  of  legis 
lation.  Wherever  the  climate,  the  soil,  the  health  of  the  country 
are  such  that  it  cannot  be  cultivated  by  white  labor,  you  will  have 
African  labor,  and  compulsory  labor  at  that.  Wherever  white  labor 
can  be  employed  cheapest  and  most  profitably,  there  African  labor 
will  retire  and  white  labor  will  take  its  place. 

You  cannot  force  slavery  by  all  the  acts  of  Congress  you  may 
make  on  one  inch  of  territory  against  the  will  of  the  people,  and 
you  cannot,  by  any  law  you  can  make,  keep  it  out  from  one  inch  of 
American  territory  where  the  people  want  it.  You  tried  it  in 
Illinois.  By  the  Ordinance  of  1787,  slavery  was  prohibited,  and  yet 
our  people,  believing  that  slavery  would  be  profitable  to  them,  estab 
lished  hereditary  servitude  in  the  Territory  by  Territorial  legislation, 
in  defiance  of  your  federal  ordinance.  We  maintained  slavery  there 
just  so  long  as  Congress  said  we  should  not  have  it,  and  we  abolished 
it  at  just  the  moment  you  recognized  us  as  a  State,  with  the  right  to 
do  as  we  pleased.  When  we  established  it,  it  was  on  the  supposi 
tion  that  it  was  for  our  interest  to  do  so. 

********* 

My  object  is  to  establish  firmly  the  doctrine  that  each  State  is  to 
do  it.a  own  voting,  establish  its  own  institutions,  make  its  own  laws 
without  interference,  directly  or  indirectly,  from  any  outside  power. 
The  gentleman  says  that  is  squatter  sovereignty.  Call  it  squatter 
sovereignty,  call  it  popular  sovereignty,  call  it  what  you  please,  it  is 
the  great  principle  of  self-government  on  which  this  Union  was 
formed,  and  by  the  preservation  of  which  alone  can  it  be  maintained. 
It  is  the  right  of  the  people  of  every  State  to  govern  themselves  and 
make  their  own  laws,  and  be  protected  from  outside  violence  or  inter 
ference,  directly  or  indirectly.  Sir,  I  confess  the  object  of  the  legisla 
tion  I  contemplate  is  to  put  down  this  outside  interference ;  it  is  to 
repress  this  "irrepressible  conflict ;"  it  is  to  bring  the  government 
back  to  the  true  principles  of  the  Constitution,  and  let  each  people  in 
this  Union  rest  secure  in  the  enjoyment  of  domestic  tranquillity  with 
out  apprehension  from  neighboring  States.  I  will  not  occupy 
further  time. 

EEPLY  TO  SENATOR  DAVIS. 

On  the  26th  of  Jannary,  Mr.  Douglas  made  the  following 
remarks,  in  liis  reply  to  Gen.  Jeff.  Davis,  senator  from 
Mississippi. 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  255 

ME.  DOUGLAS. — I  think  if  the  senator  from  Mississippi  had  care 
fully  read  my  speech,  he  would  have  found  no  necessity  for  vindicat 
ing  the  President  of  the  United  States  from  any  criticis-m  that  I  had 
made  upon  his  letter,  or  from  any  issue  that  I  had  made  with  the 
President  growing  out  of  that  letter.  Certainly,  in  my  speech,  there 
is  no  criticism  upon  the  President,  none  upon  his  letter,  no  issue 
made  with  him;  on  the  contrary,  an  express  disclaimer  of  any  such 
issue.  I  quoted  the  paragraph  from  the  President's  letter  in  reply 
to  GOY.  "Wise,  and  I  will  quote  it  again : 

UI  am  at  a  loss  to  discover  any  provision  in  the  Constitution  or 
laws  of  the  United  States  which  would  authorize  me  to  take  steps  for 
this  purpose."  [That  is,  preserving  the  peace  between  the  States.] 

My  impression,  from  reading  the  President's  letter,  was  that  lie 
was  inclined  to  the  belief  that  the  Constitution  conferred  no  power 
upon  the  Federal  Government  to  interfere.  But  stili,  it  might  be 
that  such  was  not  the  President's  meaning,  and  that  he  only  wished 
to  be  understood  as  saying  that  existing  laws  conferred  DO  authority 
upon  him  to  interfere.  Hence,  in  order  to  make  no  isnue  with  tho 
President  upon  that  subject,  I  stated,  I  shall  not  stop  to  inquire  whe 
ther  he  meant  to  be  understood  as  denying  the  power  of  Congress  to 
confer  authority,  or  denying  that  the  authority  was  yet  conferred. 
My  simple  object  was  to  obtain  suitable  legislation  to  redress  similar 
evils  in  the  future;  that  if  the  present  laws  were  not  sufficient— T 
believe  there  are  none  on  the  subject — Congress  ought  to  enact  suit 
able  laws  to  the  extent  that  the  Constitution  authorized,  to  prevent 
these  invasions.  I  quoted  it  for  the  purpose  of  showing  the  necessity 
of  legislation  by  Congress.  My  argument  was  founded  upon  that 
supposed  necessity.  I  proceeded  to  demonstrate  that  the  Constitu 
tion  conferred  the  power  on  Congress  to  pass  laws  necessary  and  pro 
per  to  protect  the  States,  and  I  called  upon  Congress  to  exercise  that 
power.  I  made  no  issue  with  the  President. 

But  the  senator  intimates  that  the  legislation  of  which  I  spoke 
would  lead  to  an  act  of  usurpation  that  would  endanger  the  rights  of 
the  States,  and  yet  goes  on  to  prove  that  the  President  of  the  United 
States  does  not  differ  with  mo  in  regard  to  that  constitutional  power. 
If  the  President  agrees  with  me  on  that  point,  I  am  glad  of  it.  if  lie 
differs  with  me  it  would  not  change  my  opinions  nor  my  action,  but 
I  respectfully  submit,  when  I  only  propose  such  legislation  as  the 
Constitution  authorizes  and  requires,  it  is  hardly  fair  to  say  that  that 
means  an  attack  upon  the  sovereignty  of  the  States. 

The  legislation  that  I  propose  on  this  point  of  combinations,  was 
this:  that  it  shall  be  Lawful  for  the  grand  juries  of  the  United  States 
courts  to  indict  all  men  who  shall  form  conspiracies  or  combinations 
to  invade  a  State  or  to  disturb  or  molest  citizens,  property,  or  insti 
tutions;  and  that  it  shall  be  proper  for  the  petit  jury  in  the  United 
States  courts,  under  the  judge,  to  try  and  convict  the  conspirators, 
and  to  punish  them  by  confinement  in  the  penitentiaries  or  prisons 
within  the  respective  States  where  the  conspiracies  or  combinations 
are  formed.  That  was  the  power  that  I  proposed  should  be  coa- 


256       THE   LIFE  AND   SPEECHES   OF 

ferred  by  law  on  the  federal  courts.  I  never  proposed  to  intrust  to  the 
President  an  army  to  go  and  seek  out  conspiracies,  to  seek  out  com 
binations,  and  to  punish  them  by  military  rule.  My  whole  argument 
was  that  the  federal  courts  should  have  jurisdiction  over  these  con 
spiracies  and  combinations;  that  the  conspirators  should  be  indicted, 
and  convicted  according  to  law,  and  punished  to  the  extent  of  their 
power.  But  in  case  of  an  organized  body  of  men,  or  a  military  force 
in  the  act  of  invading,  I  would  confer  authority  to  use  military  force 
to  the  extent  necessary  to  prevent  that — not  the  conspiracy. 

The  senator  says  he  has  got  that  power  now.  The  President  of 
the  United  States,  I  apprehend,  thought  not,  for  this  reason  :  He  said 
the  only  power  he  had  got  was  the  authority  conferred  by  the  two 
acts  to  which  he  alluded,  to  wit:  to  protect  the  United  States  against 
invasion  from  foreign  powers  and  Indian  tribes ;  and  he  stated  that 
the  invasion  of  one  State  from  another  State  did  not  come  within  the 
specifications  of  the  statute  rbr  protecting  the  United  States  against 
foreign  powers  and  Indian  tribes.  If  the  senator  thinks  that  that 
power  is  there,  when  we  get  the  legislation  before  us  it  will  be  pro 
per  to  make  amendments  which  will  reach  each  objection  he  may 
raise.  The  two  propositions  I  maintained  in  my  argument,  and 
those  provided  for  in  my  resolution,  were  these  :  first  to  protect  each 
State  against  invasion — the  case  of  actual  invasion  being  then  in  pro 
cess  of  execution  ;  second,  to  make  it  criminal  to  form  conspiracies 
and  combinations  in  any  State  or  Territory,  or  any  place  within  the 
United  States,  against  the  institutions,  property  or  government  of 
any  other  State  or  Territory  of  this  Union.  Those  were  the  propo 
sitions. 


KEPLY   TO    SENATOR    SEWAED. 

On  the  29th  of  February,  Mr.  Seward  made  his  great  speech 
on  the  occasion  of  his  presenting  the  Wyandott  Constitution 
of  Kansas.  It  was  a  speech  of  much  ability,  and  no  doubt, 
when  he  had  concluded,  Mr.  Seward  imagined  that  he  had 
dealt  a  death-blow  to  the  Democratic  party.  Mr.  Douglas 
immediately  replied  to  Mr.  Seward,  taking  up  seriatim  the 
points  of  his  speech,  and  scattering  his  sophistries  to  the 
winds.  By  general  confession  Mr.  Douglas  has  rarely  ap 
peared  to  better  advantage  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate  than  in 
this  triumphant  extempore  reply  to  Mr.  Seward.  In  the  lan 
guage  of  the  correspondent  of  the  "  Cleveland  Plaindealer," 
"  He  decapitated  the  mighty  Philistine  with  his  own  sword. 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  257 

The  beautiful  structure  which  had  cost  Mr.  Seward  so  much 
time,  labor,  and  travel,  was  in  one  brief  hour  scattered  in 
fragments  at  the  feet  of  the  Little  Giant." 

The  reader  will  find  the  reply  of  Mr.  Douglas  in  a  subse 
quent  part  of  this  work,  from  which  we  give  brief  extracts : 


EXTRACTS    FROM   EEPLT. 

MR.  PRESIDENT  :  I  trust  I  shall  be  pardoned  for  a  few  remarks  upon 
to  much  of  the  senator's  speech  as  consists  in  an  assault  on  the  De 
mocratic  party,  and  especially  with  regard  to  the  Kansas-Nebraska 
bill,  of  which  I  was  the  responsible  author.  It  has  become  fashion 
able  now-a-days  for  each  gentleman  making  a  speech  against  the  De 
mocratic  party  to  refer  to  the  Kansas-Nebraska  act  as"a  cause  of  all 
the  disturbances  that  have  since  ensued.  They  talk  about  the  repeal 
of  a  sacred  compact  that  had  been  undisturbed  for  more  than  a  quar 
ter  of  a  century,  as  if  those  who  complained  of  violated  faith  had 
been  faithful  to  the  provisions  of  the  Missouri  Compromise.  Sir, 
wherein  consisted  the  necessity  for  the  repeal  or  abrogation  of  that 
act,  except  it  was  that  the  majority  in  the  northern  States  refused 
to  carry  out  the  Missouri  Compromise  in  good  faith  ?  I  stood  willing 
to  extend  it  to  the  Pacific  Ocean,  and  abide  by  it  forever,  and  the 
entire  South,  without  one  exception  in  this  body,  was  willing  thus 
to  abide  by  it ;  but  the  freesoil  element  of  the  northern  States  was 
so  strong  as  to  defeat  that  measure,  and  thus  open  the  slavery  ques 
tion  anew.  The  men -who  now  complain  of  the  abrogation  of  that 
act  were  the  very  men  who  denounced  it,  and  denounced  all  of  us 
who  were  willing  to  abide  by  it  so  long  as  it  stood  upon  the  statute- 
book.  Sir,  it  was  the  defeat,  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  of  the 
enactment  of  the  bill  to  extend  the  Missouri  Compromise  to  the 
Pacific  Ocean,  after  it  had  passed  the  Senate  on  my  own  motion,  that 
opened  the  controversy  of  1850,  which  was  terminated  by  the  adop 
tion  of  the  measures  of  that  year. 

We  carried  those  Compromise  measures  over  the  head  of  the  sena 
tor  of  New  York  and  his  present  associates.  We,  in  those  measures 
established  a  great  principle,  rebuking  his  doctrine  of  intervention 
by  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  to  prohibit  slavery  in  the  Ter 
ritories.  Both  parties,  in  1852,  pledged  themselves  to  abide  by  that 
principle  and  thus  stood  pledged  not  to  prohibit  slavery  in  ihe  Ter 
ritories  by  act  of  Congress.  The  Whig  party  affirmed  that  pledge, 
and  so  did  the  Democracy.  In  1854  we  only  carried  out,  in  the 
Kansas-Nebraska  Act,  the  same  principle  that  had  been  affirmed  in 
the  Compromise  measures  of  1850.  I  repeat  that  their  resistance  to 
carrying  out  in  good  faith  the  settlement  of  1820,  their  defeat  of  thy 
bill  for  extending  it  to  the  Pacific  Ocean,  was  the  sole  cause  of  the 
agitation  of  1850,  and  gave  rise  to  the  necessity  of  establishing  the 


258  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

principle  of  non-intervention  by  Congress  with  slavery  in  the  Terri 
tories 

But,  sir,  the  whole  argument  of  that  senator  goes  far  beyond  the 
question  of  slavery,  even  in  the  Territories.  His  entire  argument 
rests  on  the  assumption  that  the  negro  and  the  white  man  were  equal 
by  Divine  law,  and  hence  that  all  laws  and  constitutions  and  govern 
ments  in  violation  of  the  principle  of  negro  equality  are  in  violation 
of  the  law  of  God.  That  is  the  basis  upon  which  his  speech  rests. 

He  quotes  the  Declaration  of  Independence  to  show  that  the  fathers 
of  the  Revolution  understood  that  the  negro  was  placed  on  an  equality 
with  the  white  man,  by  quoting  the  clause,  "  we  hold  these  truths  to 
be  self-evident  that,  all  men  are  created  equal,  and  are  endowed 
by  their  Creator  with  certain  inalienable  rights,  among  which  are 
life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness."  Sir,  the  doctrine  of  that 
senator  and  of  his  party  is — and  I  have  had  to  meet  it  for  eight 
years — that  the  Declaration  of  Independence  intended  to  recognize 
the  negro  and  the  white  man  as  equal  under  the  Divine  law,  and 
hence  that  all  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
which  recognize  slavery  are  in  violation  of  the  Divine  law.  In  other 
words,  it  is  an  argument  against  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  upon  the  ground  that  it  is  contrary  to  the  law  of  God.  The 
senator  from  New  York  has  long  held  that  doctrine.  The  senator 
from  New  York  has  often  proclaimed  to  the  world  that  the  Consti 
tution  of  the  United  States  was  in  violation  of  the  Divine  law,  and 
that  senator  will  not  contradict  the  statement.  I  have  an  extract 
from  one  of  his  speeches  now  before  me,  in  which  that  proposition  is 
distinctly  put  forth.  In  a  speech  made  in  the  State  of  Ohio,  in  1848, 
he  said: 

"  Slavery  is  the  sin  of  not  some  of  the  States  only,  but  of  them  all ;  of  not 
one  nationality,  but  of  all  nations.  It  perverted  and  corrupted  the  moral  sense 
of  mankind  deeply  and  universally,  and  this  perversion  became  a  universal 
habit.  Habits  of  thought  become  fixed  principles.  No  American  State  has 
yet  delivered  itself  entirely  from  these  habits.  "We,  in  New  York,  are  guilty 
of  slavery  still  by  withholding  the  right  of  suffrage  from  the  race  we  have 
emancipated.  You,  in  Ohio,  are  guilty  in  the  same  way  by  a  system  of  black 
laws  still  more  aristocratic  and  odious.  It  is  written  in  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  that  five  slaves  shall  count  equal  to  three  freemen  as  a  basis  of 
representation;  and  it  is  written,  also,  IN  VIOLATION  OF  DIVINE  LAW, 
that  we  shall  surrender  the  fugitive  slave  who  takes  refuge  at  our  firesides  from 
his  relentless  pursuer." 

LABOR   STATES    AXD    CAPITAL   STATES. 

The  Senater  from  New  York  has  coined  a  new  definition  of  the 
States  of  the  Union — labor  States  and  capital  States.  The  capital 
States,  I  believe,  are  the  slaveholding  States ;  the  labor  States  are 
the  non-slaveholding  States.  It  has  taken  that  senator  a  good  many 
years  to  coin  that  phrase  and  bring  it  into  use.  I  have  heard  him 
discuss  these  favorite  theories  of  his  for  the  last  ten  years,  I  think, 
and  I  never  heard  of  capital  States  and  labor  States  before.  It 
strikes  me  that  something  has  Decently  occurred  up  in  New  England 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  259 

that  makes  it  politic  to  get  up  a  question  between  capital  and  labor, 
and  take  the  side  of  the  numbers  against  the  few.  We  have  seen 
some  accounts  in  the  newspapers  of  combinations  and  strikes  among 
the  journeymen  shoemakers  in  the  towns  there — labor  against  capi 
tal.  The  senator  has  a  new  word  ready  coined  to  suit  their  case, 
and  make  the  laborers  believe  that  he  is  on  the  side  of  the  most 
numerous  class  of  voters. 

What  produced  that  strike  among  the  journeymen  shoemakers  ? 
Why  are  the  mechanics  of  New  England,  the  laborers  and  the  em 
ployees,  now  reduced  to  the  starvation  point  ?  Simply  because,  by 
your  treason,  by  your  sectional  agitation,  you  have  created  a  strife 
between  the  North  and  the  South,  have  driven  away  your  southern 
customers,  and  thus  deprive  the  laborers  of  the  means  of  support. 
This  is  the  fruit  of  your  ^Republican  dogmas.  It  is  another  step,  fol 
lowing  John  Brown,  of  the  "irrepressible  conflict."  Therefore  we 
now  get  this  new  coinage  of  "  labor  States  " — he  is  on  the  side  of 
the  shoemakers,  (laughter),  and  "  capital  States  " — he  is  against 
those  that  furnish  the  hides.  (Laughter.)  I  think  those  shoemakers 
will  understand  this  business.  They  know  why  it  is  that  they  do 
not  get  so  many  orders  as  they  did  a  few  months  ago.  It  is  not 
confined  to  the  shoemakers ;  it  reaches  every  mechanic's  shop  and 
every  factory.  All  the  large  laboring  establishments  of  the  North 
feel  the  pressure  produced  by  the  doctrine  of  the  "irrepressible  con 
liict."  This  new  coinage  of  words  will  not  save  them  from  the  just 
responsibility  that  follows  the  doctrines  they  have  been  inculcating. 
If  they  had  abandoned  the  doctrine  of  the  "irrepressible  conliict,1' 
and  proclaimed  the  true  doctrine  of  the  Constitution,  that  each  State 
is  entirely  free  to  do  just  as  it  pleases,  have  slavery  as  long  as  it 
chooses,  and  abolish  it  when  it  wishes,  there  would  be  no  conflict ; 
the  northern  and  southern  States  would  be  brethren ;  there  would 
be  fraternity  between  us,  and  your  shoemakers  would  not  strike  for 
higher  prices. 

******** 

But,  sir,  if  the  senator  from  New  York,  in  the  event  that  he  is 
made  President,  intends  to  carry  out  his  principles  to  their  logical 
conclusions,  let  us  see  where  they  will  lead  him.  In  the  same  speech 
that  I  read  from  a  few  minutes  ago,  I  find  the  following.  Address 
ing  the  people  of  Ohio,  he  said  : 

"  You  blush  not  at  these  things,  because  they  have  become  as  familiar  as 
household  words  ;  and  your  pretended  free-soil  allies  claim  peculiar  merit  for 
maintaining  these  miscalled  guarantees  of  slavery,  which  they  find  in  the  na 
tional  compact.  Does  not  all  this  prove  that  the  Whig  party  have  kept  up 
with  the  spirit  of  the  age  ;  that  it  is  as  true  and  faithful  to  human  freedom  as 
the  inert  conscience  of  the  American  people  will  permit  it  to  be?  What  then, 
you  say,  can  nothing  be  done  for  freedom,  because  the  public  conscience  re 
mains  inert?  Yes,  much  can  be  done,  everything  can  be  done.  Slavery  can 
be  limited  to  its  present  bounds." 

That  is  the  first  thing  that  can  be  done — slavery  can  be  limited  tc 
its  present  bounds.  What  else  ? 


2GO  THE      LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

"  It  can  be  ameliorated.  It  can  and  must  be  abolished,  and  you  and  1  can  and 
must  do  it." 

There  you  find  are  two  propositions  :  first,  slavery  was  to  be  limited 
to  the  States  in  which  it  was  then  situated.  It  did  not  then  exist  in 
any  Territory.  Slavery  was  confined  to  the  States.  The  first  pro 
position  was  that  slavery  must  be  restricted,  and  confined  to  those 
States.  The  second  was,  that  he,  as  a  New  Yorker,  and  they,  the 
people  of  Ohio,  must  and  would  abolish  it;  that  is  to  say,  abolish  it 
in  the  States.  They  could  abolish  it  nowhere  else.  Every 'appeal  they 
make  to  Northern  prejudice  and  passion,  is  against  the  institution  of 
slavery  everywhere,  and  they  would  not  be  able  to  retain  their  abo 
lition  allies,  the  rank  and  file,  unless  they  held  out  the  hope  that  it  was 
the  mission  of  the  Republican  party,  if  successful,  to  abolish  slavery 
in  the  States  as  well  as  in  the  Territories  of  the  Union. 

And  again  in  the  same  speech,  the  senator  from  New  York  advised 
the  people  to  disregard  constitutional  obligations  in  these  words: 

"  But  we  must  begin  deeper  and  lower  than  the  composition  and  combination 
of  factions  or  parties,  wherein  the  strength  and  security  of  slavery  lie.  You 
answer  that  it  lies  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  the  constitutions 
and  laws  of  slaveholding  States.  Not  at  all.  It  is  in  the  erroneous  sentiment 
of  the  American  people.  Constitutions  and  laws  can  no  more  rise  above  the 
virtue  of  the  people  than  the  limpid  stream  can  climb  above  its  native  spring. 
Inculcate  the  love  of  freedom  and  the  equal  rights  of  man  under  the  paternal 
roof;  see  to  it  that  they  are  taught  in  the  schools  and  in  the  churches;  reform 
your  own  code  ;  extend  a  cordial  welcome  to  the  fugitive  who  lays  his  weary 
limbs  at  your  door,  and  defend  him  as  you  would  your  paternal  gods  ;  correct 
your  own  error,  that  slavery  is  a  constitutional  guaranty  which  may  not  be 
released,  and  ought  not  to  be  relinquished." 

I  know  they  tell  us  that  all  this  is  to  be  done  according  to  the 
Constitution;  they  would  not  violate  the  Constitution  except  so  far 
as  the  Constitution  violates  the  law  of  God — that  is  all — and  they  are 
to  be  the  judges  of  how  far  the  Constitution  does  violate  the  law  of 
God.  They  say  that  every  clause  of  the  Constitution  that  recognizes 
property  in  slaves,  is  in  violation  of  the  Divine  law,  and  hence  should 
not  be  obeyed;  and  witli  that  interpretation  of  the  Constitution,  they 
turn  to  the  South  and  say,  "We  will  give  you  all  your  rights  under 
the  Constitution,  as  we  explain  it." 

Then  the  senator  devoted  about  a  third  of  his  speech  to  a  very 
beautiful  homily  on  the  glories  of  our  Union.  All  that  he  had  said, 
all  that  any  other  man  has  ever  said,  all  that  the  most  eloquent 
tongue  can  ever  utter,  in  behalf  of  the  blessings  and  the  advantages  of 
this  glorious  Union,  I  fully  indorse.  But  still,  sir,  I  am  prepared  to  s;iy, 
that  the  Union  is  glorious  only  when  the  Constitution  is  preserved 
inviolate.  He  eulogized  the  Union,  f,  too,  am  for  the  Union  ;  I  in 
dorse  the  eulogies;  but  still,  what  is  the  Union  worth,  unless  the  Con 
stitution  is  preserved  and  maintained  inviolate  in  all  its  provisions? 

Sir,  I  have  no  faith  in  the  Union-loving  sentiments  of  those  who 
will  not  carry  out  the  Constitution  in  good  faith,  as  our  fathers  made 
it.  Professions  of  fidelity  to  the  Union  will  be  taken  for  naught,  un- 


STEPHEN     A.    DOUGLAS.  261 

*ess  they  are  accompanied  by  obedience  to  the  Constitution  upon 
which  the  Union  rests.  I  have  a  right  to  insist  that  the  Constitution 
shall  be  maintained  inviolate  in  all  its  parts,  not  only  that  which  suits 
the  temper  of  the  North,  but  every  clause  of  that  Constitution,  whe 
ther  you  like  it  or  dislike  it.  Your  oath  to  support  the  Constitution 
binds  you  to  every  line,  word,  and  syllable  of  the  instrument.  You 
have  no  right  to  say  that  any  given  clause  is  in  violation  of  the  Divine 
law,  and  that,  therefore,  you  will  not  observe  it.  The  man  who  dis 
obeys  any  one  clause  on  the  pretext  that  it  violates  the  Divine  law, 
or  on  any  other  pretext,  violates  his  oath  of  office. 

But,  sir,  what  a  commentary  is  this  pretext  that  the  Constitution  is 
a  violation  of  the  Divine  law,  upon  those  revolutionary  fathers  whose 
eulogies  we  have  heard  here  to-day.  Did  the  framers  of  that  instru 
ment  make  a  Constitution  in  violation  of  the  law  of  God?  If  so,  how 
do  your  consciences  allow  you  to  take  the  oath  of  office?  If  the  sena 
tor  from  New  York  still  holds  to  his  declaration  that  the  clause  in  the 
Constitution  relative  to  fugitive  slaves  is  a  violation  of  the  Divine 
law,  how  dare  he,  as  an  honest  man,  take  an  oath  to  support  the  in 
strument  ?  Did  he  understand  that  he  was  defying  the  authority  of 
Heaven  when  he  took  the  oath  to  support  that  instrument? 


THE    SENATORIAL    CAUCUS. 

About  the  middle  of  February,  1860,  the  whole  country 
was  astounded  by  the  report  that  some  of  the  Democratic 
senators  in  Congress  had  been  amusing  themselves  for  want 
of  something  better  to  do,  by  constructing  an  entirely 
new  platform  for  the  Charleston  Convention.  It  was  at 
first  laughed  at  as  a  good  joke,  but  finally  proved  to  be 
a  fact.  Well  might  the  question  be  asked,  "Who  au 
thorized  them  to  make  a  platform  for  the  party  at  the 
Charleston  Convention  ?  What  business  had  they  to  med 
dle  in  the  matter  ?"  Certain  gentlemen  were  named  by  them 
as  a  committee  to  arrange  something  to  be  presented  to  a 
wondering  and  admiring  world  as  the  new  Democratic  creed. 
Yet  strange  to  say,  this  committee  did  not  embody  the 
talents  or  the  wisdom  of  the  Democratic  party  in  the  Senate. 
Was  there  no  merit  in  Mr.  Toombs,  or  Mr.  Pearce,  or  Mr. 
Benjamin,  or  Mr.  Polk,  or  Mr.  Pugh,  or  Mr.  Hammond,  or 
Mr.  Davis,  or  Mr.  Nicholson,  or  Mr.  Wigfall,  that  they  wero 
passed  over  in  the  formation  of  the  committee  ? 


262      THE  LIFE  AND  SPEECHES  OF 

The  chairman  of  the  Caucus,  Mr.  Bright,  a  bitter  enemy  of 
Mr.  Douglas,  appointed  the  following  cast : 

Mr.  Green  of  Missouri,  who  had  supplanted  Mr.  Douglas 
as  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Territories ;  Mr.  Fitch  of 
Indiana,  an  ancient  hater  of  Mr.  Douglas  ;  Mr.  Bigler  of  Penn 
sylvania,  the  shadow  of  the  President ;  Mr.  Gwin  of  California, 
whose  hostility  to  Mr.  Douglas  is  implacable  and  proverbial ; 
and  Mr.  Chestnut  of  South  Carolina.  Excepting  Mr.  Chest 
nut,  who  is  really  an  amiable  gentleman,  and  a  man  of  great 
ability,  of  what  singular  material  was  this  committee  com 
posed  !  and  that,  too,  when  there  were  such  men  as  Mason, 
Hunter,  Clingman,  and  Brown,  in  the  Senate !  This  com 
mittee  of  five  were  to  report  their  platform  to  the  Democratic 
members  of  the  Senate,  in  caucus ;  and  after  its  approval  there, 
it  was  to  be  introduced  into  the  Senate  for  adoption. 

Mr.  Bright  could  not  have  selected  a  better  committee  for 
the  purpose  of  heading  off  Mr.  Douglas  at  Charleston.  A 
manifesto  was  therefore  expected  from  this  committee  of  five, 
which  would  be  pointedly  directed  to  the  overthrow  of  the 
distinguished  senator  from  Illinois,  and  his  doctrine  of  popu 
lar  sovereignty.  It  was  hoped  by  Messrs.  Bright,  Fitch, 
Gwin  and  Co.,  that  by  the  action  of  this  caucus,  such  new 
tests  might  be  introduced  at  the  Charleston  Convention,  as 
would  make  it  impossible  for  Mr.  Douglas  to  receive  the 
nomination.  The  whole  proceedings  of  the  committee  were 
what  might  have  been  anticipated. 

PLATFORM    OF    THE    CAUCUS. 

The  following  are  the  material  resolutions  of  the  caucna 
platform : 

4.  JResolved,  That  neither  Congress  nor  a  Territorial  legislature, 
whether  by  direct  legislation  or  legislation  of  an  indirect  and  unfriendly 
character,  possesses  the  power  to  annul  or  impair  the  constitutional 
right  of  any  citizen  of  the  United  States  to  take  his  slave  property 
into  the  common  Territories,  and  there  hold  and  enjoy  the  same  while 
the  Territorial  condition  remains. 


UwiyfcKoi  i  7 

OF 


STEPHEN     A.    DOUGLAS.  263 


5.  Resolved,  That  if  experience  should  at  any  time  prove  that  the 
judiciary  and  executive  authority  do  not  possess  the  means  to  insure 
adequate  protection  to  constitutional  rights  in  a  Territory,  and  if  the 
Territorial  government  should  fail  or  refuse  to  provide  the  necessary 
remedies  for  that  purpose,  it  will  be  the  duty  of  Congress  to  supply 
such  deficiency. 

6.  Resolved,  That  the  inhabitants  of  a  Territory  of  the  United 
States,  when  they  rightfully  form  a  constitution  to  be  admitted  as  a 
State  into  the  Union,  may  then,  for  the  first  time  —  like  the  people  of 
a  State  when  forming  a  new  constitution  —  decide  for  themselves 
whether  slavery,  as  a  domestic  institution,  shall  be  maintained  or 
prohibited  within  their  jurisdiction  ;  and  if  Congress  admit  them  as  a 
State  "they  shall  be  received  into  the  Union  with   or   without 
slavery,  as  their  constitution  may  prescribe  at  the  time  of  their 
admission." 

It  remains  to  be  seen  what  disposition  the  United  States 
Senate  will  make  of  this  Utopian  piece  of  Senatorial-caucus 
patchwork  ;  this  modern  bed  of  Procrustes.  At  all  events, 
it  is  too  short  for  the  Little  Giant. 

The  material  and  obnoxious  features  of  the  caucus  plat 
form  will  be  found  in  those  provisions  in  which  the  caucus, 
to  use  the  language  of  Senator  Bayard,  on  the  Trumbull 
amendment,  "  attempted  to  give  a  judicial  exposition  of 
the  Constitution,  and  to  usurp  judicial  power  "  by  deciding 
against  the  right  of  a  Territorial  legislature  to  control  the 
slavery  question  in  violation  of  the  Cincinnati  platform,  and 
in  advance  of  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States. 

These  resolutions,  when  translated  into  plain  English,  in 
effect  declare  that  if  the  people  of  a  Territory  desire  slavery, 
and  pass  laws  to  introduce  and  protect  it,  Congress  will  not 
interfere  with  their  decision  ;  but  if  they  do  not  want  it,  and 
so  decide  in  their  legislation,  Congress  ought  to  interfere,  to 
force  it  on  them,  by  the  enactment  of  a  code  for  its  protec 
tion  in  the  Territories. 

Is  this  the  boasted  principle  of  non-intervention  with 
slavery  in  States,  Territories  and  the  District  of  Columbia,  to 
which  the  party  was  pledged  by  tbe  Cincinnati  platform  ? 


THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES      OF 

Is  this  the  principle,  "  ancient  as  free  government  itself,"  of 
which  Mr.  Buchanan  spoke  in  his  letter  accepting  the  Cin 
cinnati  nomination,  when  he  said  that  the  Kansas-Nebraska 
Act  "  has  simply  declared  that  the  people  of  a  Territory,  like 
those  of  a  State,  shall  decide  for  themselves  whether  slavery 
shall  or  shall  not  exist  within  their  limits  ?" 

We  should  be  doing  injustice  to  the  Democratic  party — no 
less  than  to  those  gentlemen  concerned — to  omit  to  state  the 
fact  that  the  introduction  of  these  resolutions  was  deemed 
unfortunate  and  improper  by  at  least  twelve  southern  sena 
tors,  as  was  announced  in  caucus  pending  the  discussion. 

Nor  is  it  unworthy  of  note  to  mention  the  further  fact 
that  Messers.  Pugh  and  Douglas  are  understood  to  have  been 
the  only  senators  from  the  free  States  who  raised  their  voices 
in  caucus  against  this  gross  departure  from  the  usages, 
creed  and  established  policy  of  the  Democratic  party.  Nay, 
if  well-accredited  and  uncontradicted  rumors  are  to  be 
believed,  the  main  champions  of  these  resolutions  were 
Messrs.  Bright,  Fitch,  Gwin  and  Lane — all  representing  free 
States. 

Mr.  Lane,  who  was  so  loud  in  his  declarations,  in  1856,  in 
favor  of  the  doctrines  of  popular  sovereignty,  and  the 
right  of  the  people  to  introduce  or  exclude  slavery  at  their 
pleasure  during  their  Territorial  condition,  is  represented  in 
the  public  press  as  having  declared  in  the  Senate  caucus, 
that  "  he  did  not  wish  to  live  in  a  republic  wrhich  would  not 
protect  slavery  in  the  Territories  by  act  of  Congress — that  he 
could  not  conceive  how  a  southern  man  could  consent  to 
remain  in  the  Union  without  such  Congressional  protection, 
and  that  he  had  no  respect  for  any  man  who  would  not  vote 
for  an  act  of  Congress,  protecting  slavery  in  the  Territories." 


STEPHEN     A.     DOCTGLAS.  265 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

THE     STATE     CONVENTIONS. 

Conventions  of  Illinois,  Indiana,  Ohio,  Minnesota,  Iowa,  Wisconsin  and 
'.Michigan ;  also  of  Maine,  New  Hampshire,  Vermont,  Connecticut  and 
New  York — Claims  of  the  North-west — Conclusion. 

CONVENTIONS   IN   THE   NORTHWEST. 

THE  northwestern  States  began  to  hold  their  State  Conven 
tions,  and  to  elect  delegates  to  the  National  Democratic  Con 
vention  at  Charleston,  early  in  1860 

Illinois  Avas  first  in  the  field.  She  held  her  Convention  at 
Springfield,  on  the  4th  of  January,  1860,  and  unanimously 
adopted,  among  others,  the  following  resolutions : 

ResMved,  That  the  Democracy  of  Illinois  do  reassert  and  affirm 
the  Cincinnati  platform,  in  the  words,  spirit  and  meaning  with  which 
the  same  was  adopted,  understood  and  ratified  by  the  people  in  1856, 
and  do  reject  and  utterly  repudiate  all  such  new  issues  and  tests  as 
the  revival  of  the  African  slave-trade,  or  a  congressional  slave  code 
for  the  Territories,  or  the  doctrine  that  slavery  is  a  federal  institu 
tion,  deriving  its  validity  in  the  several  States  and  Territories  in 
which  it  exists  from  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  instead 
of  being  a  mere  municipal  institution,  existing  in  such  States  and 
Territories  "under  the  laws  thereof." 

Resolved,  That  the  Democratic  party  of  the  Union  is  pledged  in 
faith  and  honor,  by  the  Cincinnati  Platform  and  its  indorsement  of 
the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act,  to  the  following  propositions  : 

1.  That  all  questions  pertaining  to  African  slavery  in  the  Terri 
tories  shall  be  forever  banished  from  the  halls  of  Congress. 

2.  That  the  people  of  the  Territories  respectively  shall  be  left  per 
fectly  free  to  make  such  laws  and  regulations  in  respect  to  slavery 
and  all  other  matters  of  local  concern  as  they  may  determine  for 
themselves,  subject  to  no  other  limitations  or  restrictions  than  those 
imposed  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 


266  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

3.  That  all  questions  affecting  the  validity  or  constitutionality  of 
any  Territorial  enactments  shall  be  referred  for  final  decision  to  tho 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  as  the  only  tribunal  provided 
by  the  Constitution  which  is  competent  to  determine  them. 

Resolved,  That  wo  recognize  the  paramount  judicial  authority  of 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  as  provided  in  the  Consti 
tution,  and  hold  it  to  be  the  imperative  duty  of  all  good  citizens  to 
respect  and  obey  the  decisions  of  that  tribunal,  and  to  aid,  by  all 
lawful  means,  in  carrying  them  into  faithful  execution. 

Resolved^  That  the  Democracy  of  Illinois  repel  with  just  indigna 
tion  the  injurious  and  unfounded  imputation  upon  the  integrity  and 
impartiality  of  the  Supreme  Court,  which  is  contained  in  the  as 
sumption  on  the  part  of  the  so-called  Eepublicans,  that,  in  the  Dred 
Scott  case,  that  august  tribunal  decided  against  the  right  of  tho  peo 
ple  of  the  Territories  to  decide  the  slavery  question  for  themselves, 
without  giving  them  an  opportunity  of  being  heard  by  counsel  in 
defence  of  their  rights  of  self-government,  and  when  there  was  no 
Territorial  law,  enactment  or  fact  before  tho  court  upon  which  that 
question  could  possibly  arise. 

Resolved,  That  whenever  Congress  or  the  legislature  of  any  State 
or  Territory  shall  make  any  enactment,  or  do  any  act  which  attempts 
to  divest,  impair  or  prejudice  any  right  which  the  owner  of  slaves, 
or  any  other  species  of  property,  may  have  or  claim  in  any  Territory 
or  elsewhere,  by  virtue  of  the  Constitution  or  otherwise,  and  tho 
party  aggrieved  shall  bring  his  case  before  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
Uwted  States,  the  Democracy  of  Illinois,  as  in  duty  bound  by  their 
obligations  of  fidelity  to  the  Constitution,  will  cheerfully  and  faith 
fully  respect  and  abide  by  the  decision,  and  use  all  lawful  means  to 
aid  in  giving  it,  full  effect  according  to  its  true  intent  and  meaning. 

Resolved,  That  the  Democracy  of  Illinois  view  with  inexpressible 
horror  and  indignation  the  murderous  and  treasonable  conspiracy  of 
John  Brown  and  his  confederates  to  incite  a  servile  insurrection  in 
the  slaveholding  States,  and  heartily  rejoice  that  the  attempt  waa 
promptly  suppressed,  and  the  majesty  of  the  law  vindicated,  by 
inflicting  upon  the  conspirators,  after  a  fair  and  impartial  trial, 
that  just  punishment  which  the  enormity  of  their  crimes  so  richly 
merited. 

Resolved,  That  the  Harper's  Ferry  outrage  was  the  natural  conse 
quence  and  and  logical  result  of  the  doctrines  and  teachings  of  the 
Republican  party,  as  explained  and  enforced  in  their  platforms,  par 
tisan  presses,  books  and  pamphlets,  and  in  the  speeches  of  their 
leaders,  in  and  out  of  Congress,  and  for  this  reason  an  honest  and 
law-abiding  people  should  not  be  satisfied  with  the  disavowal  or  dis 
approval  by  the  Republican  leaders  of  John  Brown's  acts,  unless  they 
also  repudiate  the  doctrines  and  teachings  which  produced  those 
monstrous  crimes,  and  denounce  all  persons  who  profess  to  sympa 
thize  with  murderers  and  traitors,  lamenting  their  fate  and  venerating 
their  memory  as  martyrs  who  lost  their  lives  in  a  just  and  holy  cause. 

Resolved,  That  the  delegates  representing  Illinois  in  the  Charleston 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS. 

Convention  be  instructed  to  vote  for  and  use  all  honorable  means  to 
secure  the  readoption  of  the  Cincinnati  platform,  without  any  addi 
tions  or  subtractions. 

Resolved,  That  no  honorable  man  can  accept  a  seat  as  a  delegate  in 
the  National  Democratic  Convention,  or  should  be  recognized  as  a 
member  of  the  Democratic  party,  who  will  not  abide  the  decisions 
of  such  convention  and  support  its  nominees. 

Resolved,  That  we  afBrm  and  repeat  the  principles  set  forth  in  the 
resolutions  of  the  last  State  Convention  of  the  Illinois  Democracy, 
held  in  this  city  on  the  21st  day  of  April,  1858,  and  will  not  hesitate 
to  apply  those  principles  wherever  a  proper  case  may  arise. 

Resolved,  That  the  Democracy  of  the  State  of  Illinois  is  unani 
mously  in  favor  of  Stephen  A.  Douglas  for  the  next  Presidency,  and 
that  the  delegates  from  this  State  are  instructed  to  vote  for  him,  and 
make  every  honorable  effort  to  procure  his  nomination. 


THE   NOKTIIWEST   FOR   DOUGLAS. 

The  convention  then  elected  their  22  delegates ;  and  they 
were  all  instructed  to  support  Mr.  Douglas  for  the  nomination 
at  Charleston.  ' 

Indiana  held  her  convention  at  Indianapolis  on  the  llth  of 
January,  and  passed  resolutions  nearly  similar  to  the  above 
and  quite  as  strong  in  favor  of  Mr.  Douglas.  The  26  dele' 
gates  to  Charleston,  from  Indiana,  were  instructed  by  this 
convention  to  cast  the  vote  of  the  State  of  Indiana  as  a  unit 
for  Mr.  Douglas. 

Ohio,  had  held  her  State  Convention  a  few  days  before,  and 
it  had  been  equally  unanimous  in  favor  of  Mr.  Douglas. 
Ohio  is  entitled  to  46  delegates  to  Charleston,  all  of  whom 
were  instructed  by  the  State  Convention  to  cast  the  vote  of 
Ohio  as  a  unit  for  Mr  Douglas. 

Minnesota,  entitled  to  8  delegates,  instructed  them  to  go 
as  a  unit  for  Mr.  Douglas. 

Iowa  held  her  State  Convention  at  Fort  Des  Moines,  on  the 
22d  of  February.     It  was  the  largest  convention  ever  held 
in  the  State.    There  were  518  delegates  present,  from  all  parts 
of  the  State.     The  resolutions  were   adopted  unanimously 
among  them  were  the  following  : 


268  THE     LIFE     AND      SPEECHES     OF 

8.  Resolved,  That  we  recognize  in  the  Hon.  Stephen  A.  Douglas  the 
man  for  the  times,  able  in  council,  ripe  in  experience,  honest  and  firm 
in  purpose,  and  devotedly  attached  to  the  institutions  of  the  country, 
whose  nomination  as  the  Democratic  standard-bearer  for  the  Presi 
dent  would  confer  honor  alike  on  the  party  and  the  country,  and  is 
a  consummation  devoutly  to  be  wished ;  and  that  the  delegates  elected 
by  this  convention  be  and  are  hereby  instructed  to  cast  the  vote  of 
the  State  of  Iowa  in  the  Charleston  Convention  as  a  unit  for  Stephen 
A.  Douglas  so  long  as  he  is  a  candidate  before  that  body,  and  to 
use  every  other  honorable  means  to  secure  his  nomination  for  the 
Presidency. 

Another  resolution  cordially  re-affirmed  the  principles  of 
the  platform  of  the  National  Democratic  Convention  at  Cin 
cinnati  in  1856. 

Wisconsin  held  her  State  Convention  on  the  same  day. 
The  following  resolutions  were  adopted  by  a  vote  of  165  ayes 
to  22  nays : 

Resolved.  That  the  Democratic  party  of  Wisconsin  will  cordially 
biipport  the  nominee  of  the  Charleston  convention. 

Resolved,  That  Stephen  A.  Douglas  is  the  choice  of  the  Democracy 
of  Wisconsin  for  President  of  the  United  States — his  eminent  public- 
services  rendered  the  government  and  the  country — his  signal 
triumphs  in  the  Senate  and  before  the  people — his  admitted  ability — 
his  sound  and  just  views  of  public  policy — his  devotion  to  the  Consti 
tution  and  th'e  dron — render  his  name  a  tower  of  strength,  and  gives 
assurance  to  the  conviction  that,  if  nominated  at  Charleston,  he  will 
most  certainly  receive  the  electoral  vote  of  Wisconsin.  Therefore, 

Resolved,  That  the  entire  delegation  be  instructed  to  vote  for 
Stephen  A.  Douglas. 

Michigan  also  held  her  State  Convention  on  the  same  day. 
The  convention  was  very  full,  every  county  in  the  State 
being  represented. 

The  Committee  on  Resolutions  reported  a  long  series. 
They  emphatically  indorse  the  Cincinnati  platform ;  recog 
nize  the  paramount  judical  authority  in  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States  ;  express  a  fraternal  regard  for  the  citizens 
of  every  State,  and  denounce  the  invasion  of  Virginia  as  dan 
gerous  to  the  safety  and  prosperity  of  the  country ;  appeal  to 
their  brethren  in  other  States  to  bury  local  prejudices,  and 
join  Michigan  in  advocating  the  claims  of  the  favorite  of  the 
North-west ;  present  Douglas  as  their  unanimous  choice,  and 


STEPHEN      A.     DOUGLAS.  2b'9 

instruct  their  delegates  to  use  every  honorable  means  to  se 
cure  his  nomination. 

The  resolutions  were  unanimously  adopted  amid  great 
enthusiasm.  Patriotic  Union  speeches  were  made  by  the 
State  delegates,  and  all  declared  themselves  uncompromising 
Douglas  men.  The  name  of  Douglas  was  always  received 
with  the  heartiest  applause. 
%  Among  the  resolutions  adopted,  was  the  following : 

That  admiring  his  broad,  national  statesmanship,  his  loyalty  to 
true  Democratic  principles,  his  impartial  defence  of  national  rights 
against  sectional  claims,  and  that  heroic  courage  which — in  be 
half  of  the  right  —  quails  at  no  difficulty  or  disaster,  and  confi 
dent  that  under  his  matchless  leadership  the  enthusiastic  masses 
can  and  will  sweep  the  Northwest  from  centre  to  circumference, 
the  Democracy  of  Michigan  present  Stephen  A.  Douglas  as  their 
UNANIMOUS  choice  for  the  Presidency,  and  they  hereby  instruct 
their  delegates  to  the  Charleton  Convention  to  spare  no  honor 
able  efforts  to  secure  his  nomination. 

In  the  aggregate,  these  seven  States  have  one  hundred  and 
thirty-two  delegates  at  Charleston,  and  give  sixty-six  votes 
for  President.  They  cast  over  600,000  Democratic  votes, 
a  number  equal  to  all  the  Democrats  in  the  fifteen  Southern 
States.  They  give  one-third  of  the  Democratic  vote  of  the 
Union,  and  contain  more  than  one-quarter  of  the  population 
of  the  United  States.  By  the  census  of  the  present  year 
they  will  be  entitled  to  over  ninety  members  of  Congress. 


THE    CLAIMS    OF    THE    NOTCTH-WEST. 

While  all  the  sections  of  the  Union  have  each  had  their 
Presidents — indeed  while  every  leading  State  in  the  East  and 
South  has  had  one  or  more  of  her  sons  honored  with  that 
high  office — the  great  North-west,  with  its  millions  of  people, 
has  never  had  the  Chief  Magistrate  taken  from  her  limits. 
The  case  of  General  Harrison  can  scarcely  be  quoted  to  dis- 


270  LIFE     OF      STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS. 

prove  this  remark,  as  he  held  the  office  but  one  month,  when 
it  reverted,  by  his  death,  to  Virginia. 

For  the  first  time  in  their  history,  the  unfaltering  Demo 
cracy  of  the  seven  north-western  States,  hitherto  always 
divided  in  their  choice,  arc  a  unit  for  Mr.  Douglas,  and,  if 
nominated  at  Charleston,  it  is  the  belief  of  nearly  all  the  intel 
ligent  men  in  that  section  he  would  carry  every  State  west  of 
the  Ohio  River.  They  present,  as  their  favorite,  confessedly 
the  foremost  statesman  of  the  nation — one,  the  unvarnished 
record  of  whose  achievements  puts  him  on  a  towering  pedes 
tal  and  furnishes  a  crushing  answer  to  all  the  calumnies  of  his 
enemies.  They  present  a  man  whose  private  escutcheon  slan 
der  has  never  befouled  with  its  breath,  and  whose  career  has 
been  characterized  by  a  greater  height  of  moral  grandeur 
thjiii  has  ever  been  reached  by  any  statesman  of  his  day. 

CONCLUSION. 

Combinations  are  thickening  around  him.  Undoubtedly 
the  favorite  of  the  popular  heart — beyond  question  the  first 
choice  of  a  large  majority  of  the  Democratic  masses  of  the 
country — political  conspirators  are  at  work  night  and  day  to 
defeat  his  nomination  at  Charleston.  No  contrivance  which 
artful  malice  can  suggest  is  permitted  to  escape  unavailed  of. 
Political  calumnies,  for  years  sleeping  in  the  grave  where 
truth  consigned  them,  are  revived  and  revamped.  Republi 
cans  and  southern  Disunionists,  almost  in  open  alliance,  are 
conspiring  to  thwart  this  to  them  most  hateful  consummation, 
the  former  satisfied  that  Douglas'  nomination  is  their  mortify 
ing,  crushing  defeat,  the  latter,  assured  that  if  nominated  he 
will  be  elected,  and  all  excuse  for  secession  and  revolution  re 
moved.  But  the  conspiracy  will  not  triumph.  The  people  have 
taken  up  his  cause,  and  will  bring  such  a  pressure  of  opinion 
on  Charleston  that  the  politicians  will  not  disregard  it. 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  211 


The  adjourned  meeting  of  the  DEMOCRATIC  CONTEN 
TION  to  Baltimore,  on  the  18th  day  of  June,  is  a  matter 
of  history.  MR.  DOUGLAS  was  nominated  on  the  Second 
Ballot,  he  having  received  ISOj-  votes  out  of  194J  cast, 
when  Mr.  Church,  of  New  York,  offered  the  following  : 

Revolted,  That  Stephen  A.  Douglas  having  received  two-thirds  of  all  the  votes  cast  in 
the  National  Democratic  Convention,  is,  according  to  the  rules  of  this  Convention  and  the 
usages  of  the  Democratic  party,  declared  nominated  for  the  office  of  President  of  the 
United  States. 

Messrs.  Hoge,  of  Virginia,  and  Clark,  of  Missouri,  then  simultaneously 
seconded  the  resolution  of  Mr.  Church  declaring  Judge  Douglas  nominated, 
according  to  the  usages  of  the  Democratic  party  and  the  rules  of  the  Con 
vention,  by  a  two-thirds  vote. 

The  resolution  was  adopted  unanimously. 

A  scene  of  excitement  then  ensued  that  evinced  the  violence  of  the 
feeling  so  long  pent  up.  The  cheers  were  deafening,  every  person  in  the 
theatre  rising,  waving  hats,  handkerchiefs,  and  evincing  the  utmost  enthu 
siasm.  The  scene  could  not  be  exceeded  in  excitement.  From  the  upper 
tier,  banners  long  kept  in  reserve  were  unfurled  and  waved  before  the 
audience.  On  the  stage  appeared  banners,  one  of  which  was  borne  by  the 
delegation  from  Pennsylvania,  bearing  the  motto,  "  Pennsylvania  good  for 
forty  thousand  majority  for  Douglas."  Cheers  for  the  "  Little  Giant,"  were 
responded  to  until  all  was  in  a  perfect  roar,  inside  the  building  and  outside. 

The  Convention  again  rose  en  masse,  and  the  scene  of  excitement  was 
renewed,  cheer  after  cheer  being  sent  forth  for  the  nominee. 

Mr.  Richardson,  of  Illinois,  then  made  a  speech,  thanking  the  Conven 
tion  for  the  high  honor  conferred  on  his  State  in  selecting  for  the  candi 
date  for  the  Presidency  her  favorite  son.  Alluding  to  the  seceders,  he  said 
that  if  the  Democratic  party  should  be  defeated  and  perpetually  ruined, 
they,  the  seceders,  must  bear  the  responsibility,  not  Douglas  or  his  friends. 
In  this  connection  he  produced  a  letter  from  Mr.  Douglas,  dated  Wash 
ington,  the  20th  inst.,  authorizing  and  requesting  his  friends  to  withdraw 
his  name  if,  in  their  judgment,  harmony  could  be  restored  in  the  Demo 
cratic  ranks.  Mr.  Richardson  then  said  that  the  course  of  the  seceders  had 


212  THE    LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

placed  it  out  of  the  power  of  the  friends  of  Mr.  Douglas  to  make  any  use 
of  the  letter.  He  concluded  by  saying  that  when  the  Government  fails  to 
accomplish  the  object  for  which  it  was  formed,  let  it  go  down. 

The  following  is  the  letter  of  Mr.  Douglas  : 

WASHINGTON,  Jwne  20—11,  P.M. 

MY  DEAR  SIR  :  I  learn  there  is  imminent  danger  that  the  Democratic  party  will  be  de 
moralized,  if  not  destroyed,  by  the  breaking  up  of  the  Convention.  Such  a  result  would 
inevitably  expose  the  country  to  the  perils  of  sectional  strife  between  the  Northern  and 
Southern  partisans  of  Congressional  intervention  upon  the  subject  of  slavery  in  the  Terri 
tories.  I  firmly  and  conscientiously  believe  that  there  is  no  safety  for  the  country,  no  hope 
for  the  preservation  o  f  the  Union,  except  by  a  faithful  and  rigid  adherence  to  the  doctrine 
of  non-intervention  by  Congress  with  slavery  in  the  Territories.  Intervention  means  dis 
union.  There  is  no  difference  in  principle  between  Northern  and  Southern  intervention. 
The  one  intervenes  for  slavery,  and  the  other  against  slavery ;  but  each  appeals  to  the 
passions  and  prejudices  of  his  own  section  against  the  peace  of  the  whole  country  and  the 
right  of  self-government  by  the  people  of  the  Territories.  Hence  the  docrine  of  non-inter 
vention  must  be  maintained  at  all  hazards.  But  while  I  can  never  sacrifice  the  principle, 
even  to  obtain  the  Presidency,  I  will  cheerfully  and  joyfully  sacrifice  myself  to  maintain 
the  principle, 

If,  therefore,  you  and  my  other  friends  who  have  stood  by  me  with  such  heroic  firmness 
at  Charleston  and  Baltimore  shall  be  of  the  opinion  that  the  principle  can  be  preserved, 
and  the  unity  and  ascendency  of  the  Democratic  party  maintained,  and  the  country  saved 
from  the  perils  of  Northern  Abolitionism  and  Southern  disunion  by  withdrawing  my  name 
and  uniting  with  some  other  non-intervention  Union-loving  Democrat,  I  beseech  you  to 
pursue  that  course.  Do  not  understand  me  as  wishing  to  dictate  to  my  friends ;  I  have 
implicit  confidence  in  your  and  then*  patriotism,  judgment,  and  discretion.  Whatever 
you  may  do  in  the  premises  will  meet  my  hearty  approval.  But  I  conjure  you  to  act  with 
a  single  eye  to  the  safety  and  welfare  of  the  country,  and  without  the  slightest  regard  to 
my  individual  interest  or  aggrandizement.  My  interest  will  be  best  promoted,  and  my 
ambition  gratified,  and  motives  vindicated,  by  that  course,  on  the  part  of  my  friends, 
which  will  be  most  effectual  in  saving  the  country  from  being  ruled  or  ruined  by  a  sectional 
party.  The  action  of  the  Charleston  Convention,  by  sustaining  me  by  so  large  a  majority 
on  the  platform,  and  designating  me  as  the  first  choice  of  the  party  for  the  Presidency,  is 
all  the  personal  triumph  I  desire.  This  letter  is  prompted  by  the  same  motives  which 
induced  my  dispatch  four  years  ago,  withdrawing  my  name  from  the  Cincinnati  Convention. 
With  this  knowledge  of  my  opinions  and  wishes,  you  and  your  other  friends  must  act  upon 
your  own  convictions  of  duty. 

Very  truly,  your  friend, 

S.  A.  DOUGLAS. 
To  HON.  WM.  A.  RICHARDSON,  Baltimore,  Md. 

THE    PLATFORM    ADOPTED. 

In  addition  to  and  in  explanation  of  the  Cincinnati  platform,  the  majority 
of  our  late  National  Convention,  during  its  sessions  at  Charleston  and  Balti 
more,  adopted  the  following  resolutions  : 


STEPHEN    A.     DOUGLAS.  213 

Resolved,  That  we,  the  Democracy  of  the  Union,  in  Convention  assembled,  do  hereby 
declare  our  affirmation  of  the  resolutions  unanimously  adopted  and  declared  as  a  platform 
of  principles  by  the  Democratic  Convention  at  Cincinnati,  in  the  year  1856,  believing  that 
Democratic  principles  are  unchangeable  in  their  nature  when  applied  to  the  same  subject- 
matters. 

Resolved,  That  it  is  the  duty  of  the  United  States  to  afford  ample  and  complete  protec 
tion  to  all  its  citizens,  whether  at  home  or  abroad,  and  whether  native  or  foreign  born. 

Resolved,  That  one  of  the  necessities  of  the  age  in  a  military,  commercial  and  postal 
point  of  view,  is  speedy  communication  between  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  States,  and  the 
Democratic  party  pledge  such  Constitutional  power  of  the  Government  as  will  insure  the 
construction  of  a  Railroad  to  the  Pacific  coast,  at  the  earliest  practicable  period. 

Resolved,  That  the  Democratic  party  are  in  favor  of  the  acquisition  of  Cuba  on  such 
terms  as  shall  be  honorable  to  ourselves  and  just  to  Spain. 

Resolved,  That  the  enactments  of  State  Legislatures  to  defeat  the  faithful  execution  of 
the  Fugitive  Slave  law,  are  hostile  in  character  and  subversive  to  the  Constitution,  and 
revolutionary  in  their  effects. 

Resolved,  That  it  is  in  accordance  with  the  Cincinnati  platform,  that  during  the  exis 
tence  of  Territorial  Governments,  the  measure  of  restriction,  whatever  it  maybe,  imposed 
by  the  Federal  Constitution  on  the  power  of  the  Territorial  Legislature  over  the  subject 
of  the  domestic  relations,  as  the  same  has  been  or  shall  hereafter  be  finally  determined  by 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  should  be  respected  by  all  good  citizens,  and  en 
forced  with  promptness  and  fidelity  by  every  branch  of  the  General  Government. 

On  this  platform,  word  for  word,  as  printed  above,  the  majority  of  our 
late  National  Convention  nominated  the  Hon.  Stephen  A.  Douglas  for 
President  of  the  United  States. 

MR.  DOUGLAS'  LETTER  OF  ACCEPTANCE. 

WASHINGTON,  Friday,  June  29, 1860. 

GENTLEMEN  :  In  accordance  with  the  verbal  assurance  which  I  gave  you 
when  you  placed  in  my  hands  the  authentic  evidence  of  my  nomination  for 
the  Presidency  by  the  National  Convention  of  the  Democratic  party,  I  now 
send  you  my  formal  acceptance.  Upon  a  careful  examination  of  the  plat 
form  of  principles  adopted  at  Charleston  and  reaffirmed  at  Baltimore,  with 
an  additional  resolution  which  is  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  others,  I  find 
it  to  be  a  faithful  embodiment  of  the  time-honored  principles  of  the  Demo 
cratic  party,  as  the  same  were  proclaimed  and  understood  by  all  parties  in 
the  Presidential  contests  of  1848,  1852,  and  1856. 

Upon  looking  into  the  proceedings  of  the  Convention  also,  I  find  that 
the  nomination  was  made  with  great  unanimity,  in  the  presence  and  with 
the  concurrence  of  more  than  two-thirds  of  the  whole  number  of  dele 
gates,  and  in  accordance  with  the  long-established  usages  of  the  party. 
My  inflexible  purpose  not  to  be  a  candidate,  nor  accept  the  nomination  un 
der  any  contingency,  except  as  the  regular  nominee  of  the  National  Demo- 


214:  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

cratic  party,  and  in  that  case  only  upon  the  condition  that  the  usages,  as 
well  as  the  principles  of  the  party,  should  be  strictly  adhered  to,  had  been 
proclaimed  for  a  long  time  and  become  well  known  to  the  country.  These 
conditions  having  all  been  complied  with  by  the  free  and  voluntary  action 
of  the  Democratic  masses  and  their  faithful  representatives,  without  any 
agency,  interference,  or  procurement,  on  my  part,  I  feel  bound  in  honor 
and  duty  to  accept  the  nomination.  In  taking  this  step,  I  am  not  unmind 
ful  of  the  responsibilities  it  imposes,  but  with  firm  reliance  upon  Divine 
Providence,  I  have  the  faith  that  the  people  will  comprehend  the  true  na 
ture  of  the  issues  involved,  and  eventually  maintain  the  right. 

The  peace  of  the  country  and  the  perpetuity  of  the  Union  have  been 
put  in  jeopardy  by  attempts  to  interfere  with  and  to  control  the  domestic 
affairs  of  the  people  in  the  Territories,  through  the  agency  of  the  Federal 
Government.  If  the  power  and  the  duty  of  Federal  interference  is  to  be 
conceded,  two  hostile  sectional  parties  must  be  the  inevitable  result — the 
one  inflaming  the  passions  and  ambitious  of  the  North,  the  other  of  the 
South,  and  each  struggling  to  use  the  Federal  power  and  authority  for  the 
aggrandizement  of  its  own  section,  at  the  expense  of  the  equal  rights  of 
the  other,  and  in  derogation  of  those  fundamental  principles  of  self-gov 
ernment  which  were  firmly  established  in  this  country  by  the  American  Re 
volution,  as  the  basis  of  our  entire  republican  system. 

During  the  memorable  period  of  our  political  history,  when  the  advo 
cates  of  Federal  intervention  upon  the  subject  of  slavery  in  the  Territories 
had  well-nigh  "  precipitated  the  country  into  revolution,"  the  northern 
interventionists  demanding  the  Wilmot  Proviso  for  the  prohibition  of 
slavery,  and  the  southern  interventionists,  then  few  in  number,  and  with 
out  a  single  Representative  in  either  House  of  Congress,  insisting  upon 
Congressional  legislation  for  the  protection  of  slavery  in  opposition  to  the 
wishes  of  the  people  in  either  case,  it  will  be  remembered  that  it  required 
all  the  wisdom,  power  and  influence  of  a  Clay  and  a  Webster  and  a  Cass, 
supported  by  the  conservative  and  patriotic  men  of  the  AVhig  and  Demo 
cratic  parties  of  that  day,  to  devise  and  carry  out  a  line  of  policy  which 
would  restore  peace  to  the  country  and  stability  to  the  Union.  The  essen 
tial  living  principle  of  that  policy,  as  applied  in  the  legislation  of  1850, 
was,  and  now  is,  non-intervention  by  Congress  with  slavery  in  the  Terri 
tories.  The  fair  application  of  this  just  and  equitable  principle  restored 
harmony  and  fraternity  to  a  distracted  country.  If  we  now  depart  from 
that  wise  and  just  policy  which  produced  these  happy  results,  and  permit 
the  country  to  be  again  distracted  ;  if  precipitated  into  revolution  by  a 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  215 

sectional  contest  between  Pro-Slavery  and  Anti-Slavery  interventionists, 
where  shall  we  look  for  another  Clay,  another  Webster,  or  another  Casa 
to  pilot  the  ship  of  state  over  the  breakers  into  a  haven  of  peace  and 
safety. 

The  Federal  Union  must  be  preserved.  The  Constitution  must  be  main 
tained  inviolate  in  all  its  parts.  Every  right  guaranteed  by  the  Constitu 
tion  must  be  protected  by  law  in  all  cases  where  legislation  is  necessary  to 
its  engagement.  The  judicial  authority  as  provided  in  the  Constitution 
must  be  sustained,  and  its  decisions  implicitly  obeyed  and  faithfully  exe 
cuted.  The  laws  must  be  administered  and  the  constituted  authorities 
upheld,  and  all  unlawful  resistance  to  these  things  must  be  put  down  with 
firmness,  impartiality  and  fidelity  if  we  expect  to  enjoy  and  transmit 
unimpaired  to  our  posterity,  that  blessed  inheritance  which  we  have 
received  in  trust  from  the  patriots  and  sages  of  the  Revolution. 

With  sincere  thanks  for  the  kind  and  agreeable  manner  in  which  you 
have  made  known  to  me  the  action  of  the  Convention, 

I  have  the  honor  to  be, 
Your  friend  and  fellow  citizen, 

S.  A.  DOUGLAS. 

Hon.  Wrn.  II.  Ludlow,  of  New  York ;  R.  P.  Dick,  of  North  Carolina ;  P.  C.  Wickliff,  of 
Louisiana-,  and  others  of  Committee. 


SPEECHES  AND  REPORTS. 


ON  THE  MEASURES  OF  ADJUSTMENT. 
Delivered  in  the  City  Hall,  Chicago,  Illinois,   Oct.  23,  1850. 

THE  agitation  on  the  subject  of  slavery  now  raging  through  the 
breadth  of  the  land  presents  a  most  extraordinary  spectacle.  Congress, 
after  a  protracted  session  of  nearly  ten  months,  succeeded  in  passing 
a  system  of  measures,  which  are  believed  to  be  just  to  all  parts  of  the 
Republic,  and  ought  to  be  satisfactory  to  the  people.  The  South  has 
not  triumphed  over  the  North,  nor  has  the  North  achieved  a  victory 
over  the  South.  Neither  party  has  made  any  humiliating  concessions 
to  the  other.  Each  has  preserved  its  honor,  while  neither  has  sur 
rendered  an  important  right,  or  sacrificed  any  substantial  interest. 
The  measures  composing  the  scheme  of  adjustment  are  believed  to 
be  in  harmony  with  the  principles  of  justice  and  the  Constitution. 

And  yet  we  find  that  the  agitation  is  re-opened  in  the  two  extremes 
of  the  Union  with  renewed  vigor  and  increased  violence.  In  some 
of  the  southern  States,  special  sessions  of  the  legislatures  are  being 
called  for  the  purpose  of  organizing  systematic  and  efficient  measures 
of  resistance  to  the  execution  of  the  laws  of  the  land,  and  for  the 
adoption  of  disunion  as  the  remedy.  In  the  northern  States,  munici 
pal  corporations,  and  other  organized  bodies  of  men,  are  nullifying 
the  acts  of  Congress,  and  raising  the  standard  of  rebellion  against 
the  authority  of  the  Federal  Government. 

At  the  South,  the  measures  of  adjustment  are  denounced  as  a  dis 
graceful  surrender  of  southern  rights  to  northern  abolitionism. 

At  the  North,  the  same  measures  are  denounced  with  equal  violence 
as  a  total  abandonment  of  the  rights  of  freemen  to  conciliate  the  slave 
power. 

The  southern  disunionists  repudiate  the  authority  of  the  highest 
judicial  tribunal  on  earth,  upon  the  ground  that  it  is  a  pliant  and 
corrupt  instrument  in  the  hands  of  northern  fanaticism. 

The  northern  nullifiers  refuse  to  submit  the  points  at  issue  to  the 
same  exalted  tribunal,  upon  the  ground  that  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States  is  a  corrupt  and  supple  instrument  in  the  hands  of 
the  southern  slavocracy. 

For  these  contradictory  reasons  the  people  in  both  sections  of  th« 


4  1  II  E      LIFE     AND      SPEECHES      OF 

Union  are  called  upon  to  resist  the  laws  of  the  lai.d,  and  the  authority 
of  the  Federal  Government,  by  violence,  even  unto  death  and  disunion. 

Strange  and  contradictory  positions! 

Both  cannot  be  true,  and  I  trust  in  God  neither  may  prove  to  be. 
We  have  fallen  on  evil  times,  when  passion^  and  prejudice,  and  ambi 
tion,  can  so  blind  the  judgments  and  deaden  the  consciences  of  men, 
that  the  truth  cannot  be  seen  and  felt.  The  people  of  the  North,  or 
the  South,  or  both,  are  acting  under  a  fatal  delusion.  Should  we  not 
pause,  and  reflect,  and  consider,  whether  we,  as  well  as  they,  have 
not  been  egregiously  deceived  upon  this  subject  ?  It  is  my  purpose 
.this  evening  to  give  a  candid  and  impartial  exposition  of  these  mea 
sures,  to  the  end  that  the  truth  may  be  known.  It  does  not  become 
a  free  people  to  rusli  madly  and  blindly  into  violence,  and  bloodshed, 
and  death,  and  disunion,  without  first  satisfying  our  consciences  upon 
whose  souls  the  guilty  consequences  must  rest. 

The  measures,  known  as  the  adjustment  or  compromise  scheme, 
are  six  in  number  : 

1.  The  admission  of  California,  with  her  free  constitution. 

2.  The  creation  of  a  Territorial  government  for  Utah,  leaving  the 
people  to  regulate  their  own  domestic  institutions. 

3.  The  creation  of  a  Territorial  government  for  New  Mexico,  with 
like  provisions. 

4.  The  adjustment  of  the  disputed  boundary  with  Texas. 

5.  The  abolition  of  the  slave  trade  in  the  District  of  Columbia. 

6.  The  Fugitive  Slave  Bill. 

The  first  three  of  these  measures — California,  Utah,  and  New 
Mexico — I  prepared  with  my  own  hands,  and  reported  from  the 
Committee  on  Territories,  as  its  chairman,  in  the  precise  shape  in 
which  they  now  stand  on  the  statute-book,  with  one  or  two  unimportant 
amendments,  for  which  I  also  voted.  I,  therefore,  hold  myself  iv>- 
ponsible  to  you,  as  my  constituents,  for  those  measures  as  they  passed. 
If  there  is  anything  wrong  in  them,  hold  me  accountable;  if  there  is 
anything  of  merit,  give  the  credit  to  those  who  passed  tlve  bills. 
These  measures  are  predicated  on  the  great  fundamental  principle  that 
every  people  ought  to  possess  the  right  of  forming  and  regulating 
their  own  internal  concerns  and  domestic  institutions  in  their  own 
way.  It  was  supposed  that  those  of  our  fellow-citizen!?  who  emi 
grated  to  the  shores  of  the  Pacific  and  to  our  other  territories,  were 
as  capable  of  self-government  as  their  neighbors  and  kindred  whom 
they  left  behind  them  ;  and  there  was  no  reason  for  believing  that 
they  have  lost  any  of  their  intelligence  or  patriotism  by  the  wayside, 
while  crossing  the  Isthmus  or  the  Plains.  It  was  also  believed,  that 
after  their  arrival  in  the  country,  when  they  had  become  familiar 
with  its  topography,  climate,  productions,  and  rest  nrccs,  and  had  con 
nected  their  destiny  with  it,  they  were  fully  as  competent  to  judge  for 
themselves  what  kind  of  laws  and  institutions  were  best  adapted  to 
their  condition  and  interests,  as  we  were  who  never  ~aw  the  country, 
and  knew  •  y  little  about  it.  To  question  their  competency  to  do 


STEPHEN     A.    DOUGLAS.  5 

this,  was  to  deny  their  capacity  for  self-government.  If  they  have 
the  requisite  intelligence  and  honesty  to  be  intrusted  with  the  enact 
ment  of  laws  for  the  government  of  white  men,  I  know  of  no  reason 
why  tl.ey  should  not  be  deemed  competent  to  legislate  for  the  negro. 
It'  they  are  sufficiently  enlightened  to  make  laws  for  the  protection 
of  life,  liberty,  and  property — of  morals  and  education — to  determine 
the  relation  of  husband  and  wife — of  parent  and  child — I  am  not 
aware  that  it  requires  any  higher  degree  of  civilization  to  regulate 
the  affairs  of  master  and  servant.  These  things  are  all  confided  by 
the  Constitution  of  each  State  to  decide  for  itself,  and  I  know  of  no 
reason  why  the  same  principle  should  not  be  extended  to  the  Terri 
tories.  My  votes  and  acts  have  been  in  accordance  with  these  views 
in  all  cases,  except  the  instances  in  which  I  voted  under  your 
instructions.  Those  were  your  votes,  and  not  mine.  I  entered  my 
protest  against  them  at  the  time — before  and  after  they  were  recorded 
— and  shall  never  hold  myself  responsible  for  them.  I  believed  then, 
and  believe  now,  that  it  was  better  for  the  cause  of  freedom,  of 
humanity,  and  of  republicanism,  to  leave  the  people  interested  to 
settle  all  these  questions  for  themselves.  They  have  intellect  and 
consciences  as  well  as  we,  and  have  more  interest  in  doing  that 
which  is  best  for  themselves  and  their  posterity,  than  we  have  as 
their  self-constituted  and  officious  guardians.  I  deem  it  fortunate  for 
the  peace  and  harmony  of  the  country  that  Congress,  taking  the 
same  view  of  the  subject,  rejected  the  Proviso,  and  passed  the  bills 
in  the  shape  in  which  I  originally  reported  them.  So  far  as  slavery 
is  concerned,  I  am  sure  that  any  man  who  will  take  the  pains  to 
examine  the  history  of  the  question,  will  come  to  the  conclusion  that 
this  is  the  true  policy,  as  well  as  the  sound  republican  doctrine.  Mr. 
Douglas  here  went  into  a  historical  view  of  the  subject,  to  show 
that  slavery  had  never  been  excluded  in  fact  from  one  inch  of  the 
American  continent  by  act  of  Congress.  When  the  federal  Consti 
tution  was  formed  in  '87,  twelve  of  the  thirteen  States,  then  compos 
ing  the  Confederation,  held  slaves,  and  sustained  the  institution  of 
slavery  by  their  laws.  Since  that  period  slavery  had  been  abol 
ished  in  six  of  these  twelve  original  slave  States.  How  was  this 
effected  ?  Not  by  an  act  of  Congress.  Not  by  the  interposition  of 
the  Federal  Government.  Congress  had  no  power  over  the  subject, 
and  never  attempted  to  interfere  with  it.  Slavery  was  abolished  in 
those  States  by  the  people  of  each,  acting  for  themselves,  and  upon 
their  own  motion  and  responsibility.  The  people  became  convinced 
that  it  was  for  their  own  interests,  and  the  interests  of  their  posterity, 
pecuniarily  and  morally,  and  they  did  it  of  their  own  free  will,  and 
rigidly  enforced  their  own  laws. 

So  it  was  in  the  territory  northwest  of  the  Ohio  River.  By  the  act 
of  Congress,  known  as  the  Ordinance  of  '87,  slavery  was  prohibited 
by  law,  but  not  excluded  in  fact.  Slavery  existed  in  the  Territories 
of  Illinois  and  Indiana,  in  spite  of  the  Ordinance,  under  the  authority 
of  the  Territorial  laws.  Illinois  was  a  slaveholding  Territory  in  de- 


6  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

fiance  of  the  act  of  Congress,  but  became  a  free  State  by  tlie  action 
of  our  own  people,  when  they  framed  our  State  constitution,  prepa 
ratory  to  their  admission  into  the  Union.  So  it  was  with  Indiana. 
Oregon  prohibited  slavery  by  the  action  of  her  people  under  their 
provisional  government,  several  years  before  Congress  established 
a  Territorial  government.  In  short,  wherever  slavery  has  been 
excluded,  and  free  institutions  established,  it  has  been  done  by  the 
voluntary  action  of  the  people  interested.  Wherever  Congress  at 
tempted  to  interfere  in  opposition  to  the  wishes  of  the  people  of  the 
Territory,  its  enactments  remained  a  dead  letter  upon  the  statute- 
book,  and  the  people  took  such  legislative  action  as  comported  with 
their  inclinations  and  supposed  interests. 

Mr.  Douglas  then  referred  to  the  country  acquired  from  Mexico, 
and  called  the  attention  of  the  audience  to  the  fact,  that  the  aboli 
tionists  had  all  predicted  that  slavery  would  certainly  be  introduced 
into  those  territories,  unless  Congress  interfered  and  prohibited  it  by 
law,  and  condemned  him  because  he  was  opposed  to  such  interfer 
ence.  The  problem  is  now  solved.  What  was  then  a  matter  of 
opinion  and  disputation,  has  become  a  historical  fact.  Time  has 
settled  the  controversy,  and  shown  who  was  right  and  who  was 
wrong.  The  Wilmot  Proviso  was  not  adopted.  Congress  did  not 
prohibit  slavery  in  those  territories,  and  yet  slavery  does  not  exist  in 
them.  In  California,  it  was  prohibited  by  the  people  in  the  consti 
tution  with  which  that  State  was  admitted  into  the  Union.  It  is 
well  known  that  the  people  of  ISTew  Mexico,  when  they  formed  a 
constitution  with  the  view  of  asking  admission,  also  prohibited  sla 
very.  These  facts  show  conclusively  that  all  the  predictions  of  the 
abolitionists  upon  this  subject  have  been  falsified  by  history,  and  that 
my  own  have  been  literally  fulfilled.  I  refer  to  these  facts,  not  in  the 
spirit  of  self-gratulation,  but  to  show  that  these  men,  who  have 
alarmed  the  friends  of  freedom,  and  for  a  time  partially  controlled 
the  popular  sentiment,  were  themselves  mistaken,  and  misled  their 
followers;  at  the  same  time  that  their  doctrine  was  at  war  with  the 
whole  spirit  of  our  republican  institutions. 

But  let  us  return  to  the  measures  immediately  under  discussion. 
It  must  be  conceded  that  the  question  of  the  admission  of  California 
was  not  free  from  difficulty,  independently  of  the  subject  of  sla 
very.  There  were  many  irregularities  in  the  proceedings ;  in  fact, 
every  step  in  her  application  for  admission  was  irregular,  when 
viewed  with  reference  to  a  literal  compliance  with  the  most  approved 
rules  and  usages  in  the  admission  of  new  States.  On  the  other  haud, 
it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  this  resulted  from  the  necessity  of 
the  case.  Congress  had  failed  to  perform  its  duty — had  established 
no  Territorial  government,  and  made  no  provision  for  her  admission 
into  the  Union.  She  was  left  without  government,  and  was  there 
fore  compelled  to  provide  one  for  herself.  She  could  not  conform 
to  rules  which  had  not  been  established,  nor  comply  with  laws  which 
Congress  had  failed  to  enact.  The  same  irregularities  had  occurred. 


STEPHEN     A.DOUGLAS.  7 

however,  and  been  waived,  in  the  admission  of  other  States  under 
peculiar  circumstances.  True,  they  had  not  all  occurred  in  the  case 
of  any  one  State;  but  some  had  in  one,  others  in  another;  so  that, 
by  looking  into  the  circumstances  attending  the  admission  of  each  of 
the  new  States,  we  find  that  all  of  these  irregularities,  as  they  are 
called,  had  intervened  and  been  waived  in  the  course  of  our  legisla 
tive  history.  Besides,  the  territory  of  California  was  too  extensive 
for  one  State,  (if  we  are  to  adopt  the  old  States  as  a  guide  in  carving 
out  new  ones,)  being  about  three  times  the  size  of  New  York;  and 
her  boundaries  were  unnatural  and  unreasonable,  disregarding  the 
topography  of  the  country,  and  embracing  the  whole  mining  region 
and  her  coast  in  the  limits.  Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  the  slavery 
question  was  not  the  only  real  difficulty  that  the  admission  of  Cali 
fornia  presented  to  the  minds  of  calm  and  reflecting  men  ;  although 
it  cannot  be  denied  that  it  was  the  exciting  cause,  which  stimulated 
a  large  portion  of  the  people  in  one  section  to  demand  her  instant 
admission,  and  in  the  other,  to  insist  upon  her  unconditional  rejec 
tion.  Even  in  this  point  of  view,  I  humbly  conceive  that  the  ultras 
in  each  extreme  of  the  republic  acted  under  a  misconception  of  their 
true  interests  and  real  policy.  The  whole  of  California — from  the 
very  nature  of  the  country,  her  rocks  and  sands,  elevation  above  the 
sea,  climate,  soil,  and  productions — was  bound  to  be  free  territory 
by  the  decision  of  her  own  people,  no  matter  when  admitted  or  how 
divided.  Hence,  if  considered"  with  reference  to  the  preponderance 
of  political  power  between  the  free  and  slaveholding  States,  it  was 
manifestly  the  true  policy  of  the  South  to  include  the  whole  country 
in  one  State  ;  while  the  same  reasons  should  have  induced  the  North 
to  subdivide  it  into  as  many  States  as  the  extent  of  the  territory 
would  justify.  But,  in  my  opinion,  it  was  not  proper  for  Congress 
to  act  upon  any  such  principle.  We  should  know  no  North,  no 
South,  in  our  legislation,  but  look  to  the  interests  of  the  whole  coun 
try.  By  our  action  in  this  case,  the  rights  and  privileges  of  Califor 
nia  and  the  Pacific  coast  were  principally  to  be  affected.  By  erect 
ing  the  country  into  one  State  instead  of  three,  the  people  are  to  be 
represented  in  the  Senate  by  two  in  the  place  of  six  senators.  If 
their  interests  suffer  in  consequence,  they  can  blame  no  one  but 
themselves,  for  Congress  only  confirmed  what  they  had  previously 
done.  The  problem  in  relation  to  slavery  should  have  been  much 
more  easily  solved.  It  was  a  question  which  concerned  the  people 
of  California  alone.  The  other  States  of  the  Union  had  no  interest 
in  it,  and  no  right  to  interfere  with  it.  South  Carolina  settled  that 
question  within  her  own  limits  to  suit  herself;  Illinois  has  decided  it 
in  a  manner  satisfactory  to  her  own  people ;  and  upon  what  prin 
ciple  are  we  to  deprive  the  people  of  the  State  of  California  of  a  right 
which  is  common  to  every  State  in  the  Union  ? 

The  bills  establishing  Territorial  governments  for  Utah  and  New 
Mexico  are  silent  upon  the  subject  of  slavery,  except  the  provision 
that,  when  they  should  be  admitted  into  the  Union  as  States,  each 


8        .  THE     LIFE     AND      SPEECHES     OF 

should  decide  the  question  of  slavery  for  itself.  This  latter  provision 
was  not  incorporated  in  my  original  bills,  for  the  reason  that  I  con 
ceived  it  to  involve  a  principle  so  clearly  deducible  from  the  Consti 
tution  that  it  was  unnecessary  to  embody  it  in  the  form  of  a  legal 
enactment.  But  when  it  was  offered  as  an  amendment  to  the  bills, 
I  cheerfully  voted  for  it,  lest  its  rejection  should  be  deemed  a  denial 
of  the  principle  asserted  in  it.  The  abolitionists  of  the  North  pro 
fess  to  regard  these  bills  as  a  total  abandonment  of  the  principles  of 
freedom,  because  they  do  not  contain  an  express  prohibition  of  sla 
very  ;  while  the  ultras  of  the  South  denounce  the  same  measures  as 
equivalent  to  the  Wilmot  Proviso. 

Of  ths  Texas  boundary  I  have  but  little  to  say,  for  the  reason  that 
I  have  scarcely  heard  it  alluded  to  since  my  return  home,  although 
many  complaints  are  made  against  it  in  other  portions  of  the  free 
States.  It  was  an  unfortunate  dispute,  which  could  result  in  no 
practical  benefit  to  either  party,  no  matter  how  decided.  The  Terri 
tory  in  controversy  was  of  no  considerable  value.  If  there  was  a 
spot  on  the  face  of  the  American  continent  more  worthless  than  any 
other  ;  if  there  was  a  barren  waste  more  desolate — sands  more  arid, 
and  rocks  more  naked  than  all  others — it  was  the  country  in  dispute 
between  Texas  and  the  United  States.  Distant  from  navigation,  and 
almost  inaccessible  for  want  of  means  of  communication ;  void  of 
timber,  fuel,  water,  or  soil,  with  the  exception  of  here  and  there  a 
nook  in  the  gorges  of  the  mountains,  it  was  entirely  useless,  save  as 
it  afforded  hiding-places  for  the  wild  and  roaming  savages.  And  yet 
the  controversy  was  none  the  less  serious  and  fierce  in  consequence 
of  the  barrenness  of  the  country.  Texas  believed  it  to  be  hers,  and 
deemed  it  a  point  of  honor  to  maintain  her  title  at  all  hazards  and 
against  all  odds.  Many  of  the  States  entertained  doubts  of  the  vali 
dity  of  the  Texan  claim,  while  others  considered  it  entirely  without 
foundation.  In  this  state  of  the  case,  each  party  having  partial  pos 
session,  was  mustering  troops  to  render  its  possession  complete  to 
the  exclusion  of  the  other.  Many  of  the  slaveholding  States,  from 
sympathy  with  the  peculiar  institutions  of  Texas,  were  preparing  to 
array  themselves  on  the  one  side,  while  most  of  the  free  States,  from 
aversion  to  those  institutions,  were  expected  to  array  themselves  on 
the  other.  Thus  were  we  plunging  headlong  and  madly  into  a  civil 
war,  involving  results  which  no  human  wisdom  could  foresee,  and 
consequences  which  could  be  contemplated  only  with  horror. 

Fortunately  this  unnatural  struggle  was  averted  by  the  timely  and 
judicious  interposition  of  Congress.  The  Committee  on  Territories, 
to  whom  the  subject  had  been  referred,  found  it  impossible  to  ascer 
tain -and  agree  upon  the  true  boundary  line  of  Texas,  and  accord 
ingly  authorized  me,  as  their  chairman,  to  report  a  bill  for  adjusting 
the  boundary  upon  an  arbitrary  but  convenient  line,  drawn  through 
the  centre  of  the  desert,  and  to  pay  Texas dollars  for  relin 
quishing  her  claim  to  the  waste  lands  outside  of  that  line.  I,  there 
fore,  reported  this  provision-,  at  the  same  time  that  I  brought  in  the 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  9 

lills  for  California,  Utah,  and  New  Mexico,  with  the  intention  of 
moving  to  fill  the  blank  with  ten  millions  of  dollars.  When  the 
Committee  of  Thirteen,  which  was  subsequently  appointed,  united 
into  one  the  several  bills  which  had  been  reported  by  the  Commit 
tee  on  Territories,  and  thus  formed  what  has  been  known  as  the 
"  Omnibus  Bill,"  they  made  a  slight  change  in  the  line  which  had 
been  agreed  upon  by  the  Territorial  Committee.  Upon  the  defeat 
of  the  Omnibus,  Mr.  Pearce,  of  Maryland,  brought  in  a  separate  bill 
for  adjusting  this  boundary,  predicated  upon  the  principle,  also,  of 
an  arbitrary  but  convenient  line  through  the  Desert,  changing  the 
courses,  however,  so  as  to  obviate  some  objections  which  have  been 
urged  to  the  others,  and  paying  Texas  ten  millions  of  dollars  for  re 
linquishing  her  claim.  This  bill,  after  having  been  joined  in  the 
House  of  Representatives  to  the  bill  establishing  a  Territorial  gov 
ernment  for  New  Mexico,  passed  both  houses,  and  became  the  law 
of  the  land.  The  people  of  Texas  have  since  ratified  it  at  the  polls 
by  an  overwhelming  majority  ;  and  thus  this  dangerous  element  of 
agitation  has  been  withdrawn  from  the  controversy  by  the  mutual 
assent  of  the  parties.  And  yet  there  are  organized  parties,  in  both 
extremes  of  the  Union,  who  are  striving  to  reopen  the  controversy 
by  persuading  the  people  that  the  rights  and  interests  of  their  own 
particular  section  have  been  basely  betrayed  in  the  settlement  of 
this  question.  At  the  South,  it  is  boldly  proclaimed,  and  every 
where  repeated,  that  sixty  thousand  square  miles  of  slave  territory 
have  been  sold  and  converted  into  free  soil.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  northern  nullifiers  and  abolitionists  are  industriously  impressing 
it  upon  the  people  that  more  than  fifty  thousand  square  miles  of  free 
soil  have  been  transferred  to  Texas,  and  converted  into  slave  terri 
tory  by  the  act  of  Congress  adjusting  the  Texas  boundary.  Such 
are  the  extremities  to  which  prejudice  and  ambition  can  lead  des 
perate  men !  Neither  party  has  gained  or  lost  anything,  so  far  as 
the  question  of  slavery  is  concerned.  Texas  has  gained  ten  millions 
of  dollars,  and  the  United  States  have  saved,  in  blood  and  treasure, 
the  expenses  of  a  civil  war. 

The  next  in  the  series  of  measures  was  the  bill  for  the  abolition  ot 
the  slave  trade  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  This  bill  was  prepared 
and  reported  by  the  Committee  of  Thirteen,  and  I  gave  it  my  cordial, 
support.  I  has  been  represented  at  the  South  as  a  concession  to  the 
North,  to  induce  us  to  perform  our  duties  under  the  Constitution  in 
the  surrender  of  fugitives  from  labor,  and  much  opposition  has  been 
raised  against  the  whole  scheme  of  adjustment  on  that  account.  I 
did  not  regard  it  in  that  light.  My  vote  was  given  upon  no  such  con 
siderations.  I  believed  each  of  the  measures  substantially  right  in 
itself,  and,  under  the  extraordinary  circumstances  by  which  we  were 
surrounded,  eminently  wise  and  expedient.  The  bill  does  not  abolish 
slavery  in  the  District — does  not  emancipate  the  few  slaves  that  aro 
there,  and  interferes  with  no  man's  right  of  property.  It  simply 
provides  that  slaves  shall  not  be  brought  from  the  surrounding 

1* 


10  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

States,  or  elsewhere,  into  the  District  for  sale.  In  this  respect,  Con 
gress  only  followed  the  example  of  the  legislatures  of  Maryland, 
North  Carolina,  Kentucky,  and,  in  fact,  most  of  the  slaveholding 
States.  The  country  embraced  within  the  limits  of  the  District  of 
Columbia,  therefore,  stands  in  precisely  the  same  relation  to  the 
slave  trade  under  this  law,  that  it  would  have  stood  under  the  laws 
of  Maryland,  if  it  had  never  been  separated  from  that  State.  What 
justification  can  there  be  then,  for  the  assertion  that  this  was  a  con 
cession  to  the  North  ?  It  does  nothing  more  nor  less  than  to  apply  the 
general  principles  of  the  legislation  of  a  majority  of  the  southern 
States  to  the  District  of  Columbia.  But,  while  it  was  no  concession 
from  one  section  to  the  other,  I  had  a  right  to  expect  that  those 
modern  philanthropists  who  have  declaimed  so  eloquently  and  vio 
lently  against  the  disgrace  of  the  National  Capitol,  by  the  slave  trade 
within  its  precincts,  would  have  rejoiced  with  exceeding  joy  at  the 
passage  of  this  act.  I  have  listened  in  vain  for  one  word  of  appro 
val  or  commendation  from  the  advocates  of  abolition  or  nullification. 
While  the  whole  series  of  Compromise  measures  are  denounced  in 
coarse  and  unmeasured  terms,  not  one  word  of  congratulation  to  the 
friends  of  freedom- — not  a  word  of  approval  of  the  act  or  of  the 
conduct  of  those  who  voted  for  it — is  allowed  to  escape  their  lips. 
All  the  other  measures  of  the  scheme  of  adjustment  are  attempted 
to  be  kept  in  the  background,  and  concealed  from  the  public  view, 
in  order  that  more  prominence  and  importance  may  be  given  to 
what  they  are  pleased  to  call  "THE  INFAMOUS  FUGITIVE  SLAVE  BILL." 

Before  1  proceed  to  the  exposition  of  that  bill,  I  will  read  the  pre 
amble  and  resolutions  passed  by  the  Common  Council  of  this  city, 
night  before  last. 

Mr.  Douglas  then  read  as  follows  : 

"  Whereas,  The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  provides  that  the  privilege 
of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  shall  not  be  suspended,  unless  when,  in  cases  of 
rebellion  or  invasion,  the  public  safety  may  require  it;  and, 

"  Whereas,  The  late  act  of  Congress  purporting  to  be  for  the  recovery  of 
fugitive  slaves,  virtually  suspends  the  habeas  corpus,  and  abolishes  the  right 
of  trial  by  jury,  and  by  its  provisions,  not  only  fugitive  slaves,  but  white  men, 
'  owing  service'  to  another  in  another  State,  viz.,  the  apprentice,  the  mecha 
nic,  the  farmer,  the  laborer  engaged  on  contract  or  otherwise,  whose  terms  of 
service  are  unexpired,  may  be  captured  and  carried  off  summarily,  and  withoul 
legal  resource  of  any  kind  ;  and, 

u  Whereas,  No  law  can  be  legally  or  morally  binding  on  us  which  violates 
the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  ;  and, 

"  Whereas,  Above  all,  in  the  responsibilities  of  human  life,  and  the  practice 
and  propagation  of  Christianity,  the  laws  of  God  should  be  held  paramount  to 
all  human  compacts  and  statutes  :  Therefore, 

"  Resolved,  That  the  Senators  and  Representatives  in  Congress  from  the  free 
States,  who  aided  and  assisted  in  the  passage  of  this  infamous  law,  and  those 
who  basely  sneaked  away  from  their  seats,  and  thereby  evaded  the  question, 
richly  merit  the  reproach  of  all  lovers  of  freedom,  and  are  fit  only  to  be  ranked 
with  the  traitors,  Benedict  Arnold  and  Judas  Iscariot,  who  betrayed  bis  Lorrf 
and  Master  for  thirty  pieces  of  silver. 

"And  Resolv&d.  That  the  citizens,  officers,  and  police  of  the  city  be,  and 


STEPHEN     A.    DOUGLAS.  11 

they  are  hereby  requested  to  abstain  from  all  interference  in  the  capture  and 
delivering  up  of  the  fugitive  from  unrighteous  oppression,  of  whatever  nation, 
name,  or  color. 

"  Resolved,  That  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law  lately  passed  by  Congress  is  a  cruel 
and  unjust  law,  and  ought  not  to  be  respected  by  any  intelligent  community, 
and  that  this  Council  will  not  require  the  city  police  to  render  any  assistance 
for  the  arrest  of  fugitive  slaves. 

"  AYES— Aid.  Milliken,  Loyd,  Sherwood,  Foss,  Throop,  Sherman,  Richards, 
Brady  and  Dodge. 

"  NAYS— Aid.  Page  and  Williams." 

But  for  the  passage  of  these  resolutions,  said  Mr.  D.,  I  should  not 
have  addressed  you  this  evening,  nor,  indeed,  at  any  time  before  iny 
return  to  the  Capitol.  I  have  no  desire  to  conceal  or  withhold  my 
opinions,  no  wish  to  avoid  the  responsibility  of  a  full  and  frank 
expression  of  them,  upon  this  and  all  other  subjects  which  were 
embraced  in  the  action  of  the  last  session  of  Congress.  My  reasons 
for  wishing  to  avoid  public  discussion  at  this  time,  were  to  be  found 
in  the  state  of  my  health  and  the  short  time  allowed  me  to  remain 
among  you. 

Now  to  the  resolutions.  I  make  no  criticism  upon  the  language 
in  which  they  are  expressed ;  that  is  a  matter  of  taste,  and  in  every 
thing  of  that  kind  I  defer  to  the  superior  refinement  of  our  city 
fathers.  But  it  cannot  be  disguised  that  the  polite  epithets  of 
"  traitors,  Benedict  Arnold,  and  Judas  Iscariot,  who  betrayed  his 
Lord  and  Master  for  thirty  pieces  of  silver,"  will  be  understood 
abroad  as  having  direct  personal  application  to  my  esteemed  col 
league,  Gen.  Shields,  and  myself.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  inten 
tion  of  those  who  voted  for  the  resolutions,  I  will  do  the  members 
of  council  the  justice  to  say,  that  I  do  not  believe  they  intended  to 
make  any  such  application.  But  their  secret  intentions  are  of  little 
consequence,  when  they  give  their  official  sanction  to  a  charge  of 
infamy,  clothed  in  such  language  that  every  man  who  reads  it  must 
give  it  a  personal  application.  The  whole  affair,  however,  looks 
strange,  and  even  ludicrous,  when  contrasted  with  the  cordial  recep 
tion  and  public  demonstrations  of  kindness  and  confidence,  and  even 
gratitude  for  supposed  services,  extended  to  my  colleague  and  myself 
upon  our  arrival  in  this  city  one  week  ago.  Then  we  were  welcomed 
home  as  public  benefactors,  and  invited  to  partake  of  a  public  dinner, 
by  an  invitation  numerously  signed  by  men  of  all  parties  and  shades 
of  opinion.  The  invitation  had  no  sooner  been  declined,  for  reasons 
which  were  supposed  to  be  entirely  satisfactory,  and  my  colleague 
staited  for  his  home,  than  the  Common  Council,  who  are  presumed  to 
speak  officially  for  the  whole  population  of  the  city,  attempted  to 
brand  their  honored  guests  with  infamy,  and  denounce  them  as  Bene 
dict  Arnolds  and  Judas  Iscariots!  1  have  read  somewhere  that  it 
was  a  polite  custom,  in  other  countries  and  a  different  age,  to  invite 
those  whom  they  secretly  wished  to  destroy  to  a  feast,  in  order  to 
secure  a  more  convenient  opportunity  of  administering  the  hemlock! 
I  acquit  the  Common  Council  of  any  design  of  introducing  that  custom 


12  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

into  our  hospitable  city.     But  I  have  done  with  this  subject,  so  fai 
as  it  has  a  personal  bearing. 

It  is  a  far  more  important  and  serious  matter,  when  viewed  with 
reference  to  the  principles  involved,  and  the  consequences  which 
may  result.  The  Common  Council  of  the  city  of  Chicago  have 
assumed  to  themselves  the  right,  and  actually  exercised  the  power, 
of  determining  the  validity  of  an  act  of  Congress,  and  have  declared 
it  void  upon  the  ground  that  it  violates  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  and  the  law  of  God !  They  have  gone  further ;  they 
declared,  by  a  solemn,  official  act,  that  a  law  passed  by  Congress 
"ought  not  to  be  respected  by  any  intelligent  community,"  and 
have  called  upon  "  the  citizens,  officers,  and  police  of  the  city" 
to  abstain  from  rendering  any  aid  or  assistance  in  its  execution! 
What  is  this  but  naked,  unmitigated  nullification  ?  An  act  of  the 
American  Congress  nullified  by  the  Common  Council  of  the  city  of 
Chicago!  Whence  did  the  council  derive  their  authority?  I  have 
been  able  to  find  no  such  provision  in  the  city  charter,  nor  am  I 
aware  that  the  legislature  of  Illinois  is  vested  with  any  rightful 
power  to  confer  such  authority.  I  have  yet  to  learn  that  a  subordi 
nate  municipal  corporation  is  licensed  to  raise  the  standard  of  rebel 
lion,  and  throw  off  the  authority  of  the  Federal  Government  at 
pleasure !  This  is  a  great  improvement  upon  South  Carolinian  nul 
lification.  It  dispenses  with  the  trouble,  delay,  and  expense  of  con 
vening  legislatures  and  assembling  conventions  of  the  people,  for  the 
purpose  of  resolving  themselves  back  into  their  original  elements, 
preparatory  to  the  contemplated  revolution.  It  has  the  high  merit 
of  marching  directly  to  its  object,  and  by  a  simple  resolution,  writ 
ten  and  adopted  on  the  same  night,  relieving  the  people  from  their 
oaths  and  allegiance,  and  of  putting  the  nation  and  its  laws  at  defi 
ance  !  It  nas  heretofore  been  supposed  by  men  of  antiquated  notions, 
who  have  not  kept  up  with  the  progress  of  the  age,  that  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  was  invested  with  the  power  of  deter 
mining  the  validity  of  an  act  of  Congress  passed  in  pursuance  of  the 
forms  of  the  Constitution.  This  wTas  the  doctrine  of  the  entire 
North,  and  of  the  nation,  when  it  became  necessary  to  exert  the 
whole  power  of  the  government  to  put  down  nullification  in 
another  portion  of  the  Union.  But  the  spirit  of  the  age  is  progres 
sive,  and  is  by  no  means  confined  to  advancement  in  the  arts  and 
physical  sciences.  The  science  of  politics  and  of  government  is  also 
rapidly  advancing  to  maturity  and  perfection.  It  is  not  long  since 
that  I  heard  an  eminent  lawyer  propose  an  important  reform  in  the 
admirable  judicial  system  of  our  State,  which  he  thought  would 
render  it  perfect.  It  was  so  simple  and  eminently  practicable,  that 
it  could  not  fail  to  excite  the  admiration  of  even  the  casual  inquirer. 
His  proposition  was,  that  our  judicial  system  should  be  so  improved 
as  to  allow  an  appeal  on  all  constitutional  questions  from  the  Supreme 
Court  of  this  State  to  two  justices  of  the  peace!  When  tltot  shall 
have  been  effected,  but  one  other  reform  will  be  necessary  to  render 


STEPHEN      A.     DOUGLAS.  13 

our  national  system  perfect,  and  that  is,  to  change  the  federal  Con 
stitution,  so  as  to  authorize  an  appeal,  upon  all  questions  touching 
the  validity  of  acts  of  Congress,  from  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  to  the  Common  Council  of  the  city  of  Chicago ! 

So  much  for  the  general  principles  involved  in  the  acts  of  the 
council.  I  will  now  examine  briefly  the  specific  ground  of  objection 
urged  by  the  council  against  the  Fugitive  Slave  Bill,  as  reasons  why 
it  should  not  be  obeyed. 

The  objections  are  two  in  number :  first,  that  it  suspends  the  writ 
of  habeas  corpus  in  the  time  of  peace,  in  violation  of  the  Constitu 
tion  ;  secondly,  that  it  abolishes  the  right  of  trial  by  jury. 

How  the  council  obtained  the  information  that  these  two  odious 
provisions  were  contained  in  the  law,  I  am  unable  to  divine.  One 
thing  is  certain,  that  the  members  of  the  council,  who  voted  for  these 
resolutions,  had  never  read  the  law,  or  they  would  have  discovered 
their  mistake.  There  is  not  one  word  in  it  in  respect  to  the  writ  of 
habeas  corpus  or  the  right  of  trial  by  jury.  Neither  of  these  sub 
jects  is  mentioned  or  referred  to.  The  law  is  entirely  silent  on 
those  points.  Is  it  to  be  said  that  an  act  of  Congress  which  is 
silent  on  the  subject,  ought  to  be  construed  to  repeal  a  great  consti 
tutional  right  by  implication  ?  Besides,  this  act  is  only  an  amend 
ment — amendatory  to  the  old  law — the  act  of  1V93 — but  does  not 
repeal  it.  There  is  no  difference  between  the  original  act  and  the 
amendment,  in  this  respect.  Both  are  silent  in  regard  to  the  writ 
of  habeas  corpus  and  the  right  of  trial  by  jury.  If  to  be  silent  is  to 
suspend  the  one  and  abolish  the  other,  then  the  mischief  was  done 
by  the  old  law  fifty-seven  years  ago.  If  this  construction  be  correct, 
the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  has  been  suspended,  and  a  trial  by  a  jury 
abolished,  more  than  half  a  century,  without  anybody  ever  discov 
ering  the  fact,  or,  if  knowing  it,  without  uttering  a  murmur  of  com 
plaint. 

Mr.  Douglas  then  read  the  whole  of  the  act  of  1793,  and  compared 
its  provisions  with  the  amendment  of  last  session,  for  the  purpose 
of  showing  that  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  and  the  right  of  trial  by 
jury  were  not  alluded  to  or  interfered  with  by  either.  But  I  main 
tain,  said  Mr.  D.,  that  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  is  applicable  to  the 
case  of  the  arrest  of  a  fugitive  under  this  law,  in  the  same  sense  in 
which  the  Constitution  intended  to  confer  it,  and  to  the  fullest 
extent  for  which  that  writ  is  ever  rightfully  issued  in  any  case.  In 
this  I  am  fully  sustained  by  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Crittenden,  the  attor 
ney-general  of  the  United  States.  As  soon  as  the  bill  passed  the 
two  houses  of  Congress,  an  abolition  paper  raised  the  alarm  that 
the  habeas  corpus  bill  had  been  suspended.  The  cry  was  eagerly 
caught  up,  and  transmitted  by  lightning  upon  the  wires,  to  every 
part  of  the  Union,  by  those  whose  avocation  is  agitation.  The 
President  of  the  United  States,  previous  to  signing  the  bill,  referred 
it  to  the  attorney -general,  for  his  opinion  upon  the  point  whether 
any  portion  of  it  violated  any  provision  of  the  Constitution  of  the 


1-1  THE     LIFE     AND      SPEECHES     OF 

United  States,  and  especially  whether  it  could  possibly  be  construed 
to  suspend  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus.  I  have  the  answer  of  the 
attorney-general  before  me,  in  which  he  gives  it  as  his  decided 
opinion  that  every  part  of  the  law  is  entirely  consistent  with  the 
Constitution,  and  that  it  does  not  suspend  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus. 
I  would  commend  the  argument  of  the  attorney-general  to  the 
careful  perusal  of  those  who  have  doubts  upon  the  subject.  Upon 
the  presentation  of  this  opinion,  and  with  entire  confidence  in  its 
correctness,  President  Fillmore  signed  the  bill. 

[Here  Mr.  Douglas  was  interrupted  by  a  person  present,  who 
called  his  attention  to  the  last  clause  of  the  6th  section  of  the  bill, 
which  he  read,  and  asked  him  what  construction  he  put  upon  it,  if 
it  did  not  suspend  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus.] 

Mr.  Douglas,  in  reply,  expressed  his  thanks  to  the  gentleman  who 
propounded  the  inquiry.  His  object  was  to  meet  every  point,  and 
remove  every  doubt  that  could  be  possibly  raised  ;  and  he  expressed 
the  hope  that  every  gentleman  present  would  exercise  the  privilege 
of  asking  him  questions  upon  all  points  upon  which  he  was  not  fully 
satisfied.  lie  then  proceeded  to  answer  the  question  which  had  been 
propounded.  That  section  of  the  bill  provides  for  the  arrest  of  the 
fugitive  and  the  trial  before  the  commissioner ;  and  if  the  facts  of 
servitude,  ownership,  and  escape  be  established  by  competent  evi 
dence,  the  commissioner  shall  grant  a  certificate  to  that  effect,  which 
certificate  shall  be  conclusive  of  the  right  of  the  person  in  whose 
favor  it  is  issued  to  remove  the  fugitive  to  the  State  from  which  ho 
fled.  Then  comes  the  clause  which  is  supposed  to  suspend  the  habeas 
corpus  :  "And  shall  prevent  all  molestatian  of  said  person  or  persons 
&?/  any  process  issued  by  any  court,  judge,  magistrate,  or  other  person 
whomsoever." 

The  question  is  asked,  whether  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  is  not  a 
"PROCESS"  within  the  meaning  of  this  act?  I  answer,  that  it 
undoubtedly  is  such  a  "  process,"  and  that  it  may  be  issued  by  any 
court  or  judge  having  competent  authority — not  for  the  purpose  of 
u  molesting  "  a  claimant,  having  a  servant  in  his  possession,  with 
such  a  certificate  from  the  commissioner  or  judge,  but  for  the  purpose 
of  ascertaining  the  fact  whether  he  has  such  a  certificate  or  not ; 
and  if  so,  whether  it  be  in  due  form  of  law ;  and  if  not,  by  what 
authority  he  holds  the  servant  in  custody.  Upon  the  return  of  the 
writ  of  habeas  corpus,  the  claimant  will  be  required  to  exhibit  to 
the  court  his  authority  for  conveying  that  servant  back ;  and  if  he 
produces  a  "  certificate "  from  the  commissioner  or  judge  in  due 
form  of  law,  the  court  will  decide  that  it  has  no  power  to  "  molest 
the  claimant "  in  the  exercise  of  his  rights  under  the  law  and  the 
Constitution.  But  if  the  claimant  is  not  able  to  produce  such  certi 
ficate,  or  other  lawful  authority,  or  produces  one  which  is  not  in 
conformity  with  law,  the  court  will  set  the  alleged  servant  at  liberty, 
for  the  very  reason  that  the  law  has  not  been  complied  with.  The 
sole  object  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  is  to  ascertain  bj  what 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  15 

authority  a  person  is  held  in  custody;  to  release  him  if  no  such 
authority  be  shown ;  and  to  refrain  from  any  molestation  of  the 
claimant,  if  legal  authority  he  produced.  The  habeas  corpus  is 
necessary,  therefore,  to  carry  the  fugitive  law  into  effect,  and,  at 
the  same  time,  to  prevent  a  violation  of  the  rights  of  freemen  under 
it.  It  is  essential  to  the  security  of  the  claimant,  as  well  as  the 
protection  of  the  rights  of  those  liable  to  be  arrested  under  it.  The 
reason  that  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  was  not  mentioned  in  the  bill 
must  be  obvious.  The  object  of  the  new  law  seems  to  have  been, 
to  amend  the  old  one  in  those  particulars  wherein  experience  had 
proven  amendments  to  be  necessary,  and  in  all  other  respects  to  leave 
it  as  it  had  stood  from  the  days  of  Washington.  The  provisions  of 
the  old  law  have  been  subjected  to  the  test  of  long  experience — to 
the  scrutiny  of  the  bar  and  the  judgment  of  the  courts.  The  writ 
of  habeas  corpus  had  been  adjudged  to  exist  in  all  cases  under  it, 
and  had  always  been  resorted  to  when  a  proper  case  arose.  In 
amending  the  law  there  was  no  necessity  for  any  new  provision  upon 
this  subject,  because  nobody  desired  to  change  it  in  this  respect. 

But  why  this  extraordinary  effort,  on  the  part  of  the  professed 
friends  of  the  fugitive,  to  force  such  a  construction  upon  the  law,  in 
the  absence  of  any  such  obnoxious  provision,  as  to  deprive  him  of 
the  benefit  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus?  The  law  does  not  do  so 
in  terms;  and  if  it  is  ever  accomplished,  it  must  be  done  by  implica 
tion,  contrary  to  the  understanding  of  those  who  enacted  it,  and  in 
opposition  to  the  practice  of  the  courts,  acquiesced  in  by  the  people, 
from  the  foundation  of  the  government.  One  would  naturally 
suppose,  that  if  there  was  room  for  doubt  as  to  what  is  the  true 
construction,  those  who  claim  to  be  the  especial  and  exclusive 
friends  of  the  negro  would  contend  for  that  construction  which  is 
most  favorable  to  liberty,  justice,  and  humanity.  But  not  so. 
Directly  the  reverse  is  the  fact.  They  exhaust  their  learning,  and 
exert  all  their  ingenuity  and  skill,  to  deprive  the  negro  of  all  rights 
under  the  law.  What  can  be  the  motive  ?  Certainly  not  to  protect 
the  rights  of  the  free,  or  to  extend  liberty  to  the  oppressed ;  for 
they  strive  to  fasten  upon  the  law  such  a  construction  as  would 
defeat  both  of  these  ends.  Can  it  be  a  political  scheme,  to  render 
the  law  odious,  and  to  excite  prejudice  against  all  who  voted  for  it, 
or  were  unavoidably  absent  when  it  passed  ?  No  matter  what  the 
motive,  the  effects  would  be  disastrous  to  those  whose  rights  they 
profess  to  cherish,  if  their  efforts  should  be  successful. 

Now,  a  word  or  two  in  regard  to  the  right  of  trial  by  jury.  The  city 
council,  in  their  resolutions,  say  that  this  law  abolishes  that  right. 
1  have  already  shown  you  that  the  council  are  mistaken — that  the 
law  is  silent  upon  the  subject,  and  stands  now  precisely  as  it  has 
stood  for  half  a  century.  If  the  law  is  defective  on  that  point,  the 
error  was  committed  by  our  fathers  in  1793,  and  the  people  have 
acquiesced  in  it  ever  since,  without  knowing  of  its  existence  or  car 
ing  to  remedy  it.  The  new  act  neither  takes  away  nor  confers  cho 


10  THE     LIFE     AND      SPEECHES     OF 

right  of  trial  by  jury.  It  leaves  it  just  were  our  fathers  and  the 
Constitution  left  it  under  the  old  law.  That  the  right  of  trial  by 
jury  exists  in  this  country  for  all  men,  black  or  white,  bond  or  free, 
guilty  or  innocent,  no  man  will  be  disposed  to  question  who  under 
stands  the  subject.  The  right  is  of  universal  application,  and  exists 
alike  in  all  the  States  of  Union ;  it  always  has  existed,  and  always 
will  exist,  so  long  as  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  shall  be 
respected  and  maintained,  in  spite  of  the  efforts  of  the  abolitionists 
to  take  it  away  by  the  perversion  of  the  fugitive  law.  The  ouly 
question  is,  where  shall  this  jury  trial  take  place  ?  Shall  the  jury  trial 
be  had  in  the  State  where  the  arrest  is  made,  or  the  State  from  which 
the  fugitive  escaped?  Upon  this  point  the  act  of  last  session  says 
nothing,  and  of  course,  leaves  the  matter  as  it  stood  under  the  law 
of  '93.  The  old  law  was  silent  on  this  point,  and  therefore  left  the 
courts  to  decide  it  in  accordance  with  the  Constitution.  The  highest 
judicial  tribunals  in  the  land  have  always  held  that  the  jury  trial 
must  take  place  in  the  State  under  whose  jurisdiction  the  question 
arose,  and  whose  laws  were  alleged  to  have  been  violated.  The  same 
construction  has  always  been  given  to  the  law  for  surrendering  fugi 
tives  from  justice.  It  provides  also  for  sending  back  the  fugitive, 
but  says  nothing  about  the  jury  trial,  or  where  it  shall  take  place. 
Who  ever  supposed  that  that  act  abolished  the  right  of  trial  by  jury  ? 
Every  day's  practice  and  observation  teach  us  otherwise.  The  jury 
trial  is  always  had  in  the  State  from  which  the  fugitive  fled.  So  it 
is  with  a  fugitive  from  labor.  When  he  returns,  or  is  surrendered 
under  the  law,  he  is  entitled  to  a  trial  by  jury  of  his  right  of  free 
dom,  and  always  has  it  when  he  demands  it.  There  is  great  unifor 
mity  in  the  mode  of  proceeding  in  the  courts  of  the  southern  States 
in  this  respect.  "When  the  supposed  slave  sets  up  his  claim,  to  the 
judge  or  other  officer,  that  he  is  free,  and  claims  his  freedom,  it  be 
comes  the  duty  of  the  court  to  issue  its  summons  to  the  master  to 
appear  in  court  with  the  alleged  slave,  and  there  to  direct  an  issue 
of  freedom  or  servitude  to  be  made  and  tried  by  a  jury.  The  master 
is  also  required  to  enter  into  bonds  for  his  own  appearance  arid  that 
of  the  alleged  slave  at  the  trial  of  the  cause,  and  that  he  will  not 
remove  the  slave  from  the  county  or  jurisdiction  of  the  court  in  the 
mean  time.  The  court  is  also  required  to  appoint  counsel  to  conduct 
the  cause  for  the  slave,  while  the  master  employs  his  own  counsel. 
All  the  officers  of  the  court  are  required  by  law  to  render  all  facili 
ties  to  the  slave  for  the  prosecution  of  his  suit  free  of  charge,  such  as 
issuing  and  serving  subpoenas  for  witnesses,  etc.  If  upon  the  trial 
the  alleged  slave  is  held  to  be  a  free  man,  the  master  is  required  to 
pay  the  costs  on  both  sides.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  he  is  held  to  be 
a  slave,  the  State  pays  the  costs.  This  is  the  way  in  which  the  trial 
by  jury  stood  under  the  old  law ;  and  the  new  one  makes  no  change 
in  this  respect.  If  the  act  of  last  session  be  repealed,  that  will  neither 
benefit  nor  injure  the  fugitive,  so  far  as  the  right  of  trial  by  jury  i* 
concerned. 


STEPHEN      A.     DOUGLAS.  17 

For  these  two  reasons — the  habeas  corpus  and  the  trial  by  jury — the 
Common  Council  have  pronounced  the  law  unconstitutional,  and  de 
clared  that  it  ought  not  to  be  respected  by  an  enlightened  community. 
I  have  shown  that  neither  of  the  objections  are  well  founded,  and  that 
if  they  had  taken  the  trouble  to  read  the  law  before  they  nullified 
it,  they  would  have  avoided  the  mistake  into  which  they  have  fallen. 
I  have  spoken  of  the  acts  of  the  city  council  in  general  terms,  and  it 
may  be  inferred  that  the  vote  was  unanimous.  I  take  pleasure  in 
stating  that  I  learn  from  the  published  proceedings  that  there  was 
barely  a  quorum  present,  and  that  Aldermen  Page  and  Williams 
voted  in  the  negative.  Having  disposed  of  the  two  reasons  assigned 
by  the  Common  Council  for  the  nullification  of  the  law,  I  shall  bo 
greatly  indebted  to  any  gentleman  who  will  point  out  any  other 
objection  to  the  new  law,  which  does  not  apply  with  equal  force  to 
the  old  one.  My  object  in  drawing  the  parallel  between  the  new 
and  old  law  is  this :  The  law  of  '93  was  passed  jhy  the  patriots  and 
sages  who  framed  our  glorious  Constitution,  ana  approved  by  the 
father  of  his  country.  I  have  always  been  taught  to  believe  that 
they  were  men  well  versed  in  the  science  of  government,  devotedly 
attached  to  the  cause  of  freedom  and  capable  of  construing  the  Con 
stitution  in  the  spirit  in  which  they  made  it.  That  act  has  been 
enforced  and  acquiesced  in  for  more  than  half  a  century,  without  a 
murmur  or  word  of  complaint  from  any  quarter. 

I  repeat — will  any  gentleman  be  kind  enough  to  point  out  a  single 
objection  to  the  new  law,  which  might  not  be  urged  with  equal  pro 
priety  to  the  act  of  '93  ? 

[Here  a  gentleman  present  arose,  and  called  the  attention  of  Mr. 
Douglas  to  the  penalties  in  the  seventh  section  of  the  new  law,  and 
desired  to  know  if  there  were  any  such  obnoxious  provisions  in  the 
old  one.] 

Mr.  Douglas  then  read  the  section  referred  to,  and  also  the  fourth 
section  of  the  act  of  '93,  and  proceeded  to  draw  the  parallel  between, 
them.  Each  makes  it  a  criminal  offence  to  resist  the  due  execution 
of  the  law ;  to  knowingly  and  willfully  obstruct  or  hinder  the  claimant 
in  the  arrest  of  the  fugitive ;  to  rescue  such  fugitive  from  the  claim 
ant  when  arrested ;  to  harbor  or  conceal  such  person  after  notice 
that  he  or  she  was  a  fugitive  from  labor.  In  this  respect  the  two 
laws  were  substantially  the  same  in  every  important  particular. 
Indeed  the  one  was  almost  a  literal  copy  of  the  other.  I  can  con 
ceive  of  no  act  which  would  be  an  offence  under  the  one,  that  would 
not  be  punishable  under  the  other.  In  the  speeches  last  night,  great 
importance  was  given  to  the  clause  which  makes  it  an  offence  to 
harbor  or  conceal  a  fugitive.  You  were  told  that  you  could  not 
clothe  the  naked,  nor  feed  the  hungry,  nor  exercise  the  ordinary 
charities  toward  suffering  humanity,  without  incurring  the  penalty 
of  the  law.  Is  this  a  true  construction  of  that  provision  ?  The  act 
does  not  so  read.  The  law  says  that  you  shall  not  "  harbor  or  con 
ceal  such  fugitive,  so  as  to  prevent  the  discovery  and  arrest  of  such 


18  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

person  after  notice  or  knowledge  of  the  fact  that  such  person  was  a 
fugitive  from  service  or  labor  as  aforesaid."  This  does  not  deprive  you 
of  the  privilege  of  extending  charities  to  the  fugitive.  You  may  feed 
him,  clothe  him,  may  lodge  him,  provided  you  do.  not  harbor  or  conceal 
him,  so  as  to  prevent  discovery  and  arrest,  after  notice  or  knowledge 
that  he  is  a  fugitive.  The  offence  consists  in  preventing  the  discovery 
and  arrest  of  the  fugitive  after  knowledge  of  the  fact,  and  not  in  the 
extending  kindness  and  charities  to  him.  This  is  the  construction 
put  upon  a  similar  provision  in  the  old  law  by  the  highest  judicial 
tribunals  in  the  land.  The  only  difference  between  the  old  law  and 
the  new  one,  in  respect  to  obstructing  its  execution,  is  to  be  found 
in  the  amount  of  the  penalty,  and  not  in  the  principle  involved. 

But  it  is  further  objected  that  the  new  law  provides,  in  addition 
to  the  penalty,  for  a  civil  suit  for  damages,  to  be  recovered  by  an  action 
of  debt  by  any  court  having  jurisdiction  of  the  cause.  This  is  true  ; 
but  it  is  also  true  that  a  similar  provision  is  to  be  found  in  the  old 
law.  The  conclucftig  clause  in  the  last  section  of  the  act  of  '93  is  as 
follows: 

u  Which  penalty  may  be  recovered  by  and  for  the  benefit  of  such 
claimant,  by  action  of  debt,  in  any  proper  court  to  try  the  same ; 
saving,  moreover,  to  the  person  claiming  such  labor  or  service,  his  right 
of  action  for  or  on  account  of  the  said  injuries,  or  either  of  them.'1'1 

Thus  it  will  be  seen,  that  upon  this  point  there  is  no  difference 
between  the  new  and  the  old  law. 

Is  there  any  other  provision  of  this  law  upon  which  explanation 
is  desired  ? 

[A  gentleman  present  referred  to  the  10th  section,  and  desired  an 
explanation  of  the  object  and  effect  of  the  record  from  another  State 
therein  provided  for.] 

1  am  glad,  said  Mr.  D.,  that  my  attention  has  been  called  to  that 
provision ;  for  I  heard  a  construction  given  to  it,  in  the  speeches  last 
night,  entirely  different  to  the  plain  reading  and  object  of  that  sec 
tion.  It  is  said,  that  this  provision  authorizes  the  claimant  to  go 
before  a  court  of  record  of  the  county  and  State  where  he  lives,  and 
there  establish  by  ex-parte  testimony,  in  the  absence  of  the  fugitive, 
the  tacts  of  servitude,  of  ownership,  and  escape ;  and  when  a  record 
of  these  facts  shall  have  been  made,  containing  a  minute  description 
of  the  slave,  it  shall  be  conclusive  evidence  against  a  person  corres 
ponding  to  that  description,  arrested  in  another  State,  and  shall  con 
sign  the  person  so  arrested  to  perpetual  servitude.  The  law  con 
templates  no  such  thing,  and  authorizes  no  such  result.  I  have  the 
charity  to  believe  that  those  who  have  put  this  construction  upon 
it  have  not  carefully  examined  it.  The  record  from  another  State 
predicated  upon  "  satisfactory  proof  to  such  court  or  judge"  before 
whom  the  testimony  may  be  adduced,  and  the  record  made,  is  to  be 
i;i;n'.1--jsive  of  two  facts  only: 

1st.  That  the  person  named  in  this  record  does  owe  service  to  the 
person  in  whose  behalf  the  record  is  made. 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  19 

2d.  That  such  person  has  escaped  from  service. 

The  language  of  the  law  is,  that  "  the  transcript  of  the  record 
authenticated,"  etc.,  "shall  be  held  and  taken  to  be  full  and  conclu 
sive  evidence  of  the  fact  of  escape,  and  that  the  service  or  labor  of 
such  person  escaping  is  due  to  the  party  in  such  record  mentioned." 
The  record  is  conclusive  of  these  two  facts,  so  far  as  to  authorize  the 
fugitive  to  be  sent  back  for  trial  under  the  laws  of  the  State  whence 
he  fled ;  l)ut  it  is  no  evidence  that  the  person  arrested  here  is  the  fugi 
tive  named  in  the  record.  The  question  of  identity  is  to  be  proven 
here  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  commissioner  or  judge,  before  whom 
the  trial  is  had,  by  "  other  and  further  evidence."  This  is  the  great 
point  in  the  case.  The  whole  question  turns  upon  it.  The  man 
arrested  may  correspond  to  the  description  set  forth  in  the  re'cord, 
and  yet  not  be  the  same  individual.  We  often  meet  persons  resem 
bling  each  other  to  such  an  extent  that  the  one  is  frequently  mis 
taken  for  the  other.  The  identity  of  the  person  becomes  a  matter 
of  proof — a  fact  to  be  established  by  the  testimony  of  competent 
and  disinterested  witnesses,  and  to  be  decided  by  the  tribunal  before 
whom  the  trial  is  had,  conscientiously  and  impartially,  accord 
ing  to  the  evidence  in  the  case.  The  description  in  the  record, 
unsupported  by  other  testimony,  is  not  evidence  of  the  identity.  It 
is  not  inserted  for  the  especial  benefit  of  the  claimant — much  less  to 
the  prejudice  of  the  alleged  slave.  It  is  required  as  a  test  of  truth, 
a  safeguard  against  fraud,  which  will  often  operate  favorably  to  the 
fugitive,  but  never  to  his  injury.  If  the  description  be  accurate  and 
true,  no  injustice  can  possibly  result  from  it.  But  if  it  be  erroneous 
or  false,  the  claimant  is  concluded  by  it ;  and  the  fugitive,  availing 
himself  of  the  error,  defeats  the  claim,  in  the  same  manner  as  a  dis 
crepancy  between  the  allegations  and  the  proof,  in  any  other  case, 
results  to  the  advantage  of  the  defendant.  I  repeat,  that  when  an 
arrest  is  made  under  a  record  from  another  State,  the  identity  of  the 
person  must  be  established  by  competent  testimony.  The  trial  in 
this  instance,  would  be  precisely  the  same  as  in  the  case  of  a  white 
man  arrested  on  a  charge  of  being  a  fugitive  from  justice.  The  writ 
of  the  governor,  predicated  upon  an  indictment,  or  even  an  affidavit 
from  another  State,  containing  the  charge  of  crime,  would  be  con 
clusive  evidence  of  the  right  to  take  the  fugitive  back ;  but  the 
identity  of  the  person  in  that  case,  as  well  as  a  fugitive  from  labor, 
must  be  proven  in  the  State  where  the  arrest  is  made,  by  competent 
witnesses,  before  the  tribunal  provided  by  law  for  that  purpose.  In 
this  respect,  therefore,  the  negro  is  placed  upon  a  perfect  equality 
with  the  white  man  who  is  so  unfortunate  as  to  be  charged  with  an 
offence  in  another  State,  whether  the  charge  by  true  or  false.  lu 
some  respects,  the  law  guards  the  rights  of  tlie  negro,  charged  with 
being  a  fugitive  from  labor,  more  rigidly  than  it  does  those  of  a 
white  man  who  is  alleged  to  be  a  fugitive  from  justice.  The  record 
from  another  State  must  be  predicated  upon  "  proof  satisfactory 
to  the  court  or  judge"  before  whom  it  is  made,  and  must  set  forth 


20  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES      OF 

the  "  matter  proved,"  before  it  can  be  evidence  against  a  fugitive 
from  labor,  or  for  any  purpose  ;  whereas,  an  innocent  white  man, 
who  is  so  unfortunate  as  to  be  falsely  charged  with  a  crime  in 
another  State,  by  the  simple  affidavit  of  an  unknown  person,  without 
indictment  or  proof  to  the  satisfaction  of  any  court,  is  liable  to  be 
transported  to  the  most  distant  portions  of  this  Union  for  trial. 

Here  we  find  the  act  of  last  session  is  a  great  improvement  upon 
the  law  of  '93  in  reference  to  fugitives,  white  or  black,  whether  they 
tied  from  justice  or  labor.  But  it  is  objected  that  the  testimony 
before  the  court  making  the  record  is  ex  parte,  and  therefore  in  vio 
lation  of  the  principles  of  justice  and  the  Constitution ;  because  it 
deprives  the  accused  of  the  privilege  of  meeting  the  witnesses  face 
to  face,  and  of  cross-examination.  Gentlemen  forget  that  all  pro 
ceedings  for  the  arrest  of  fugitives  are  necessarily  ex  parte,  from  the 
nature  of  the  case.  They  have  fled  beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
court,  and  the  object  of  the  proceeding  is,  that  they  may  be  brought 
back,  confront  the  witnesses,  and  receive  a  fair  trial  according  to  the 
Constitution  and  laws.  If  they  would  stay  at  home  in  order  to 
attend  the  trial,  and  cross-examine  the  witnesses,  the  record  would 
be  unnecessary,  and  the  fugitive  law  inoperative.  It  is  no  answer 
to  this  proposition  to  say  that  slavery  is  no  crime,  and  therefore  the 
parallel  does  not  hold  good.  I  am  not  speaking  of  the  guilt  or  inno 
cence  of  slavery.  I  am  discussing  our  obligations  under  the  Consti 
tution  of  the  United  States.  That  sacred  instrument  says  that  a 
fugitive  from  labor  u  shall  ~be  delivered  up  on  the  claim  of  the 
owner."  The  same  clause  of  the  same  instrument  provides  that 
fugitives  from  justice  shall  be  delivered  up.  We  are  bound  by  our 
oaths  to  our  God  to  see  that  claim  as  well  as  every  other  provision 
of  the  Constitution  carried  into  effect.  The  moral,  religious  and 
constitutional  obligations  resting  upon  us,  here  and  hereafter,  are  the 
same  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other.  As  citizens,  owing  allegiance 
to  the  government  and  duties  to  society,  we  have  no  right  to  inter 
pose  our  individual  opinions  and  scruples  as  excuses  for  violating  the 
supreme  law  of  the  land  as  our  fathers  made  it,  and  as  we  are  sworn 
to  support  it.  The  obligation  is  just  as  sacred,  under  the  Constitu 
tion,  to  surrender  fugitives  from  labor,  as  fugitives  from  justice.  And 
the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  according  to  the  decision  of  the 
Supreme  Court,  are  as  imperatively  commanded  to  provide  the 
necessary  legislation  for  the  one  as  for  the  other.  The  act  of  1793, 
to  which  I  have  had  occasion  to  refer  so  frequently,  and  which  has 
been  read  to  you,  provided  for  these  two  cases  in  the  same  bill.  The 
first  half  of  that  act,  relating  to  fugitives  from  justice,  applies,  from 
the  nature  and  necessity  of  the  case,  principally  to  white  men ;  and 
the  other  half  for  the  same  reasons,  applies  exclusively  to  the  negro 
race.  I  have  shown  you,  by  reading  and  comparing  the  two  laws  in 
your  presence,  that  there  is  no  constitutional  guaranty — or  common 
Law  right — or  legal,  or  judicial  privilege — for  the  protection  of  the 
white  nun  against  oppression  and  injustice,  under  the  law,  framed 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  21 

m  1793,  and  now  in  force,  for  the  surrender  of  fugitives  from  justice, 
that  does  not  apply  in  all  its  force  in  behalf  of  the  negro,  when 
arrested  as  a  fugitive  from  labor,  under  the  act  of  the  last  session. 
What  more  can  the  friends  of  the  negro  ask  than,  in  all  his  civil  and 
legal  rights  under  the  Constitution,  he  shall  be  placed  on  an  equal 
footing  with  the  white  man  ?  But  it  is  said  that  the  law  is  suscepti 
ble  of  being  abused  by  perjury  and  false  testimony.  To  what  human 
enactment  does  not  the  same  objection  lie  ?  You,  or  I,  or  any  other 
man,  who  was  never  in  California  in  his  life,  is  liable,  under  the 
Constitution,  to  be  sent  there  in  chains  for  trial  as  a  fugitive  from 
justice,  by  means  of  perjury  and  fraud.  But  does  this  fact  prove 
that  the  Constitution,  and  the  laws  for  carrying  it  into  effect,  are 
wrong,  and  should  be  resisted,  as  we  were  told  last  night,  even  unto 
the  dungeon,  the  gibbet  and  the  grave  ?  It  only  demonstrates  to  us 
the  necessity  of  providing  all  the  safeguards  that  the  wit  of  man  can 
devise,  for  the  protection  of  the  innocent  and  the  free,  at  the  same 
time  that  we  religiously  enforce,  according  to  its  letter  and  spirit, 
every  provision  of  the  Constitution.  I  will  not  say  that  the  act 
recently  passed  for  the  surrender  of  fugitives  from  labor,  accom 
plishes  all  this ;  but  I  will  thank  any  gentleman  to  point  out  any  one 
barrier  against  abuse  in  the  old  law,  or  in  the  law  for  the  surrender 
of  white  men,  as  fugitives  from  justice,  that  is  not  secured  to  the 
negro  under  the  new  law.  I  pause,  in  order  to  give  any  gentleman 
an  opportunity  to  point  out  the  provision.  I  invite  inquiry  and 
examination.  My  object  is  to  arrive  at  the  truth — to  repel  error  and 
dissipate  prejudice — and  to  avoid  violence  and  bloodshed.  Will  any 
gentleman  point  out  the  provision  in  the  old  law,  for  securing  and 
vindicating  the  rights  of  the  free  man,  that  is  not  secured  to  him  in 
the  act  of  last  session  ? 

[A  gentleman  present  rose  and  called  the  attention  of  Mr.  Douglas 
to  the  provision  for  paying  out  of  the  treasury  of  the  United  States 
the  expenses  of  carrying  the  fugitive  back  in  case  of  anticipated 
resistance.] 

Ah,  said  Mr.  D.,  that  is  a  question  of  dollars  and  cents,  involving 
no  other  principle  than  the  costs  of  the  proceeding !  I  was  discuss 
ing  the  question  of  human  rights — the  mode  of  protecting  the  rights 
of  freemen  from  invasion,  and  the  obligation  to  surrender  fugitives 
under  the  Constitution.  Is  it  possible  that  this  momentous  question, 
which  only  forty-eight  hours  ago  was  deemed  of  sufficient  import 
ance  to  authorize  the  city  council  to  nullify  an  act  of  Congress,  and 
raise  the  standard  of  rebellion  against  the  Federal  Government,  has 
dwindled  down  into  a  mere  petty  dispute,  who  shall  pay  the  costs  of 
suit  ?  This  is  too  grave  a  question  for  me  to  discuss  on  this  occasion. 
I  confess  my  utter  inability  to  do  it  justice.  Yesterday  the  Consti 
tution  of  the  ocean-bound  republic  had  been  overthrown;  the 
privileges  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  had  been  suspended  ;  the 
right  of  trial  by  jury  had  been  abolished  ;  pains  and  penalties  had 
been  imposed  upon  every  humane  citizen  who  should  feed  tho 


22  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

hungry  and  cover  the  naked  ;  the  law  of  God  had  been  outraged  by 
an  infamous  act  of  a  traitorous  Congress  ;  and  the  standard  of  rebel 
lion,  raised  by  our  city  fathers,  was  floating  in  the  breeze,  calling  on 
all  good  citizens  to  rally  under  its  sacred  folds,  and  resist  with  fire 
and  sword — the  payment  of  the  costs  of  suit  upon  the  arrest  of  a 
fugitive  from  labor ! 

I  will  pass  over  this  point,  and  inquire  whether  there  is  any  other 
provision  of  this  law  upon  which  an  explanation  is  desired?  I  hope 
no  one  will  be  backward  in  propounding  inquiries,  for  I  have  but  a 
few  days  to  remain  with  you,  and  desire  to  make  a  clean  business  of 
this  matter  on  the  present  occasion.  Is  there  any  other  objection  ? 

[A  gentleman  rose,  and  desired  to  know  why  the  bill  provides  for 
paying  ten  dollars  to  the  commissioner  for  his  fee  in  case  he  decided  in 
favor  of  the  claimant,  and  only  five  dollars  if  he  decided  against  him.] 

I  presume,  said  Mr.  Douglas,  that  the  reason  was  that  he  would 
have  more  labor  to  perform.  If,  after  hearing  the  testimony,  the 
commissioner  decided  in  favor  of  the  claimant,  the  law  made  it  his 
duty  to  prepare  and  authenticate  the  necessary  papers  to  authorize 
him  to  carry  the  fugitive  home  ;  but  if  he  decided  against  him,  he 
had  no  such  labor  to  perform.  The  law  seems  to  be  based  upon  the 
principle  that  the  commissioner  should^  be  paid  according  to  the  ser 
vice  he  should  render — five  dollars  for  presiding  at  the  trial,  and  five 
dollars  for  making  out  the  papers  in  case  the  testimony  should  re 
quire  him  to  return  the  fugitive.  This  provision  appears  to  be 
exciting  considerable  attention  in  the  country,  and  I  have  been  ex 
ceedingly  gratified  at  the  proceedings  of  a  mass  meeting  held  in  a 
county  not  far  distant,  in  which  it  was  resolved  unanimously  that 
they  could  not  be  bribed,  for  the  sum  of  five  dollars,  to  Consign  a 
freeman  to  perpetual  bondage  !  This  shows  an  exalted  state  of  moral 
feeling,  highly  creditable  to  those  who  participated  in  the  meeting. 
I  doubt  not  they  will  make  their  influence  felt  throughout  the  State, 
and  will  instruct  their  members  of  the  legislature  to  reform  our 
criminal  code  in  this  respect.  Under  our  laws,  as  they  have  stood 
for  many  years,  and  probably  from  the  organization  of  our  State 
government,  in  all  criminal  cases,  on  the  preliminary  examination 
before  the  magistrates,  and  in  all  the  higher  courts,  if  the  prisoner 
be  convicted,  the  witnesses,  jurors,  and  officers,  are  entitled  to  their 
fees  and  bills  of  costs ;  but  if  he  be  acquitted,  none  of  them  receive 
a  cent.  In  order  to  diffuse  the  same  high  moral  sense  throughout 
the  whole  community,  would  it  not  be  well,  at  their  next  meeting, 
to  pass  another  resolution,  that  they  would  not  be  bribed  by  the 
fees  and  costs  of  suit  in  any  case,  either  as  witnesses,  jurors,  magis 
trates,  or  in  any  other  capacity,  to  consign  an  innocent  man  to  a 
dismal  cell  in  the  penitentiary,  or  expose  him  to  an  ignominious 
death  upon  the  gallows  ?  Such  a  resolution  might  do  a  great  deal 
of  good  in  elevating  the  character  of  our  people  abroad,  at  the  same 
time  that  it  might  inspire  increased  confidence  in  the  liberality  and 
conscientiousness  of  those  who  adopted  it. 


STEP  HEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  23 

Is  there  any  other  objection  to  this  law  ? 

[A  gentleman  rose,  and  called  the  attention  of  Mr.  Douglas  to  the 
provision  vesting  the  appointment  of  the  commissioners  under  it  in 
the  courts  of  law,  instead  of  the  President  and  Senate,  and  asked  if 
that  was  not  a  violation  of  that  provision  of  the  Constitution  which 
says  that  judges  of  the  Supreme  Courts,  and  of  the  inferior  courts, 
should  be  appointed  by  the  President  and  Senate.] 

I  thank  the  gentleman,  said  Mr.  D.,  for  calling  my  attention  to 
this  point.  It  was  made  in  the  speech  of  a  distinguished  lawyer  last 
night,  and  evidently  produced  great  effect  upon  the  minds  of  the 
audience.  The  gentleman's  high  professional  standing,  taken  in  con 
nection  with  his  laborious  preparation  for  the  occasion,  as  was  appa 
rent  to  all,  from  his  lengthy  written  brief  before  him,  while  speak 
ing,  inspired  implicit  confidence  in  the  correctness  of  his  position. 
My  answer  to  the  objection  will  be  found  in  the  Constitution  itself, 
which  I  will  read,  so  far  as  it  bears  upon  this  question  : 

"  The  President  shall  nominate,  and  by  and  with  the  consent  of  the  Senate, 
shall  appoint  ambassadors,  other  public  ministers,  and  consuls,  judges  of  the 
Supreme  Court,  and  all  other  officers  of  the  United  States,  where  appointments 
are  not  herein  otherwise  provided  for,  and  which  shall  be  established  by 
law." 

Now  it  will  be  seen  that  the  words  "  inferior  courts  "  are  not  men 
tioned  in  the  Constitution.  The  gentleman  in  his  zeal  against  the 
law,  and  his  frenzy  to  resist  it,  interpolated  these  words,  and  then 
made  a  plausible  argument  upon  them.  I  trust  this  was  all  unin 
tentional,  or  was  done  with  the  view  of  fulfilling  the  "higher  law." 
But  there  i  is  another  sentence  in  this  same  clause  of  the  Constitu 
tion  which  I  have  not  yet  read.  It  is  as  follows  : 

"  But  the  Congress  may  by  law  vest  the  appointment  of  such  inferior  officers 
as  they  may  think  proper  in  the  President  alone,  in  the  Courts  of  Law]  or  in 
the  heads  of  Departments." 

The  practice  under  this  clause  has  usually  been  to  confer  the  power 
of  appointing  those  inferior  officers,  whose  duties  were  executive  or 
ministerial,  upon  the  President  alone,  or  upon  the  head  of  the  appro 
priate  department ;  and  in  like  manner  to  give  to  the  courts  of  law 
the  privilege  of  appointing  their  subordinates,  whose  duties  were  in 
their  nature  judicial.  What  is  meant  by  u  inferior  officers,"  whose 
appointment  may  be  vested  in  the  "  courts  of  law,"  will  be  seen  by 
reference  to  the  8th  section  of  the  Constitution,  where  the  powers 
of  Congress  are  enumerated,  and  among  them  is  the  following : 

"  To  constitute  tribunals  inferior  to  the  Supreme  Cmirt." 

Is  the  tribunal  which  is  to  carry  the  fugitive  law  into  effect  infe 
rior  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  ?  If  it  is,  the  Con 
stitution  expressly  provides  for  vesting  the  appointment  in  the  courts 
of  law.  I  will  remark,  however,  that  these  commissioners  are  not 


24:  THE      LIFE     AND      SPEECHES     OF 

appointed  under  the  new  law,  hut  in  obedience  to  an  act  of  Con 
gross  which  has  stood  on  the  statute  books  for  many  years.  If  those 
who  denounce  and  misrepresent  the  act  of  last  session,  had  conde 
scended  to  read  it  before  they  undertook  to  enlighten  the  people 
upon  it,  they  would  have  saved  themselves  the  mortification  of  ex 
posure,  as  I  will  show  by  reading  the  first  section. 

Here  Mr.  Douglas  read  the  law,  and  proceeded  to  remark:  Thus 
it  will  be  seen  that  these  commissioners  have  been  in  office  for  years, 
with  their  duties  prescribed  by  law,  nearly  all  of  which  were  of  a 
judicial  character,  and  that  the  new  law  only  imposes  additional 
duties,  and  authorizes  the  increase  of  the  number.  Why  has  not  this 
grave  constitutional  objection,  been  discovered  before,  and  the  people 
informed  how  their  rights  have  been  outraged  in  violation  of  the 
supreme  law  of  the  land?  Truly,  the  passage  of  the  fugitive  bill  has 
thrown  a  flood  of  light  upon  constitutional  principles ! 

Is  there  any  other  objection  to  the  new  law  which  does  not  apply 
to  the  act  of '93? 

[A  gentleman  rose,  and  said  that  he  would  like  to  ask  another 
question,  which  was  this  :  if  the  new  law  was  so  similar  to  the  old 
one,  what  was  the  necessity  of  passing  any  at  all,  since  the  old  one 
was  still  in  force?] 

Air.  Douglas,  in  reply,  said,  that  is  the  very  question  I  was  anxious 
some  one  should  propound,  because  I  was  desirous  of  an  oppor 
tunity  of  answering  it.  The  old  law  answered  all  the  purposes  for 
which  it  was  enacted  tolerably  well,  until  the  decision  by  the  Su 
preme  Court  of  the  United  States,  in  the  case  of  Priggs  vs.  the  State 
of  Pennsylvania,  eight  or  nine  years  ago.  That  decision  rendered 
the  law  comparatively  inoperative,  for  the  reason  that  there  were 
scarcely  any  officers  left  to  execute  it.  It  will  be  recollected  that 
the  act  of  '93  imposed  the  duty  of  carrying  it  into  effect  upon  the 
magistrates  and  other  officers  under  the  State  governments.  These 
officers  performed  their  duties  under  that  law,  with  fidelity,  for 
about  fifty  years,  until  the  Supreme  Court,  in  the  case  alluded 
to,  decided  that  they  were  under  no  legal  obligation  to  do  so,  and 
that  Congress  had  no  constitutional  power  to  impose  the  duty  upon 
them.  From  that  time,  many  of  the  officers  refused  to  act,  and  soon 
afterward  the  legislature  of  Massachusetts,  and  many  other  States, 
passed  laws  making  it  criminal  for  their  officers  to  perform  these 
duties.  Hence  the  old  law,  although  efficient  in  its  provisions,  and 
similar  in  most  respects,  and  especially  in  those  now  objected  to, 
almost  identical  with  the  new  law,  became  comparatively  a  dead 
letter  for  want  of  officers  to  carry  it  into  effect.  The  judges  of  the 
United  States  courts  were  the  only  officers  left  who  were  authorized 
to  execute  it.  In  this  State,  for  instance?,  Judge  Drummond,  whose 
residence  was  in  the  extreme  northwest  corner  of  the  State,  within 
six  miles  of  Wisconsin  and  three  of  Iowa,  and  in  the  direction  where 
fugitives  were  least  likely  to  go,  was  the  only  person  authorized  tc 
try  the  case. 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  25 

If  a  fugitive  was  arrested  at  Shawneetown  or  Alton,  three  or  font 
hundred  miles  from  the  residence  of  the  judge,  the  master  would 
attempt  to  take  him  across  the  river  to  his  home  in  Kentucky  01 
Missouri,  without  lirst  establishing  his  right  to  do  so.     This  was 
calculated  to  excite  uneasiness  and  doubts  in  the  minds  of  our  citi 
zens,  as  to  the  propriety  of  permitting  the  negro  to  be  carried  out 
of  the  State,  without  the  fact  of  his  owing  service,  and  having  es 
caped,  being  first  proved,  lest  it  might  turn  out  that  the  negro  was 
a   free  man  and  the  claimant   a  kidnapper.      And  yet,  according 
to  the  express  term  of  the  old  law,  the  master  was  authorized  to  seize 
his  slave  wherever  he  found  him,  and  to  carry  him  back  without 
process,  or  trial,  or  proof  of  any  kind  whatsoever.     Hence,  it  was 
necessary  to  pass  the  act  of  last  session,  in  order  to  carry  into 
effect,  in  a  peaceable  and  orderly  manner,  the  provisions  of  the  law 
and  the  Constitution  on  the  one  hand,  and  to  protect  the  free  colored 
man  from  being  kidnapped  and  sold  into  slavery  by  unprincipled 
men  on  the  other  hand.     The  purpose  of  the  new  law  is  to  accom 
plish  these  two  objects — to  appoint  officers  to  carry  the  law  into 
effect,  in  the  place  of  the  magistrates  relieved  from  that  duty  by  the 
decision  of  the  Supreme  Court,  and  to  guard  against  harassing  and 
kidnapping  the  free  blacks,  by  preventing  the  claimant  from  carry 
ing  the  negro  out  of  the  State,  until  he  establishes  his  legal  right  to 
do  so.     The  new  law,  therefore,  is  a  great  improvement  in  this  re 
spect  upon  the  old  one,  and  is  more  favorable  to  justice  and  freedom, 
and  better  guarded  against  abuse. 

[A  person  present  asked  leave  to  propound  another  question  to  Mr. 
Douglas,  which  was  this:  "If  the  new  law  is  more  favorable  to  free 
dom  than  the  old  one,  why  did  the  southern  slaveholders  vote  for  it, 
and  desire  its  passage  ?"] 

Mr.  Douglas  said  he  would  answer  that  question  with  a  great  deal 
of  pleasure.  The  southern  members  voted  for  it  for  the  reason  that 
it  was  a  better  law  than  the  old  one — better  for  them,  better  for  us, 
and  better  for  the  free  blacks.  It  places  the  execution  of  the  law  in 
the  hands  of  responsible  officers  of  the  government,  instead  of  leav 
ing  every  man  to  take  the  law  into  his  own  hands  and  to  execute  it 
for  himself.  It  affords  personal  security  to  the  claimant  while  arrest 
ing  his  servant  and  taking  him  back,  by  providing  him  with  the 
opportunity  of  establishing  his  legal  rights  by  competent  testimony 
before  a  tribunal  duly  authorized  to  try  the  case,  and  thus  allay  all 
apprehensions  and  suspicions,  on  the  part  of  our  citizens,  that  he  is 
a  villain,  attempting  to  steal  a  free  man  for  the  purpose  of  selling  him 
into  slavery.  The  slaveholder  has  as  strong  a  desire  to  protect  the 
rights  of  the  free  black  man  as  we  have,  arid  much  more  interest  to 
do  so  ;  for  he  well  knows,  that  if  outrages  should  be  tolerated  under 
the  law,  and  free  men  are  seized  and  carried  into  slavery ;  from  that 
moment  the  indignant  outcry  against  it  would  be  so  strong  here  and 
everywhere,  that  even  a  fugitive  from  labor  could  not  be  returned, 
lest  he  also  might  happen  to  be  free.  The  interest  of  the  slaveholder, 


26  THE     LIFE     AND      SPEECHES     OF 

therefore,  requires  a  law  which  shall  protect  the  rights  of  all  free 
men,  black  or  white,  from  any  invasion  or  violation  whatever.  I 
ask  the  question,  therefore,  whether  this  law  is  not  better  than  the 
old  one — better  for  the  North  and  the  South — better  for  the  peace  and 
quiet  of  the  whole  country  ?  Let  it  be  remembered  that  this  law  is  but 
an  amendment  to  the  act  of  '93,  and  that  the  old  law  still  remains 
in  force,  except  so  far  as  it  is  modified  by  this.  Every  man  who 
voted  against  this  modification,  thereby  voted  to  leave  the  old  law 
in  force ;  for  I  am  not  aware  that  any  member  of  either  house  of 
Congress  ever  had  the  hardihood  to  propose  to  repeal  the  law,  and 
make  no  provisions  to  carry  the-  Constitution  into  effect.  But  the 
cry  of  repeal,  as  to  the  new  law,  has  already  gone  forth.  Well,  sup 
pose  it  succeeds ;  what  will  there  have  gained  who  joined  in  the 
shout  ?  Have  I  not  shown  that  ftll  the  material  objections  they  urge" 
against  the  new  law,  apply  with  equal  force  to  the  old  one  ?  What 
do  they  gain,  therefore,  unless  they  propose  to  repeal  the  old  law, 
also,  and  make  no  provision  for  performing  our  obligations  under  the 
Constitution?  This  must  be  the  object  of  all  men  who  take  that 
position.  To  this  it  must  come  in  the  end.  The  real  objection  is  not 
to  the  new  law,  nor  to  tho  old  one,  but  to  the  Constitution  itself. 
Those  of  you  who  hold  the-je  opinions,  do  not  mean  that  the  fugitive 
from  labor  shall  be  taken  back.  That  is  the  real  point  of  your  objec 
tion.  You  would  not  care  a  farthing  about  the  new  law,  or  the  old 
law,  or  any  other  law,  or  what  provisions  it  contained,  if  there  was 
a  hole  in  it  big  enough  for  the  fugitive  to  slip  through  and  escape. 
Habeas  corpuses — trials  by  jury — records  from  other  States — pains 
and  penalties — the  whole  catalogue  of  objections,  would  be  all  moon 
shine,  if  the  negro  was  not  required  to  go  back  to  his  master.  Tell 
me,  frankly,  is  not  this  the  true  character  of  your  objection? 
[Here  several  gentlemen  gave  an  affirmative  answer.] 
Mr.  Douglas  said  he  would  answer  that  objection  by  reading  a 
portion  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  He  then  read  as 
follows : 

"No  person  held  to  service  or  labor  in  one  State,  under  the  laws  thereof, 
escaping  into  another,  shall,  into  consequence  of  any  law  or  regulation  therein, 
be  discharged  from  such  service  or  labor,  but  shall  be  delivered  up  on  the 
claim  of  the  party  to  whom  such  service  or  labor  may  be  due." 

This,  said  Mr.  D.,  is  the  supreme  law  of  the  land,  speaking  to 
every  citizen  of  the  republic.  The  command  is  imperative.  There 
is  no  avoiding — no  escaping  the  obligation,  so  long  as  we  live  under, 
and  claim  the  protection  of,  the  Constitution.  We  must  yield  implicit 
obedience,  or  we  must  take  the  necessary  steps  to  release  ourselves 
from  the  obligation  to  obey.  There  is  no  other  alternative.  We 
must  stand  by  the  Constitution  of  the  Union,  with  all  its  compro 
mises,  or  we  must  abolish  it,  and  resolve  each  State  back  into  its 
original  elements.  It  is,  therefore,  a  question  of  union  or  disunion. 
We  cannot  expect  our  brethren  of  other  States  to  remain  faithful  to 
the  compact,  and  permit  us  to  be  faithless.  Are  we  prepared,  there- 


STEPHEN    A.     DOUGLAS.  27 

fore,  to  execute  faithfully  and  honestly  the  compact  our  fathers  have 
made  for  us  ? 

[Here  a  gentleman  rose,  and  inquired  of  Mr.  Douglas,  whether  the 
clause  in  the  Constitution  providing  for  the  surrender  of  fugitive 
slaves  was  not  in  violation  of  the  law  of  God  ?] 

Mr.  Douglas  in  reply  :  The  divine  law  is  appealed  to  as  authority 
for  disregarding  our  most  sacred  duties  to  society.  The  city  council 
have  appealed  to  it,  as  their  excuse  for  nullifying  an  act  of  Congress ; 
and  a  committee  embodied  the  same  principle  in  their  resolutions  to 
the  meeting  in  this  hall  last  night,  as  applicable  both  to  the  Consti 
tution  and  laws.  The  general  proposition  that  there  is  a  law  para 
mount  to  all  human  enactments— the  law  of  the  Supreme  Euler  of 
Universe — I  trust  that  no  civilized  and  Christian  people  is  prepared 
to  question,  much  less  deny.  We  should  all  recognize,  respect,  and 
revere  the  divine  law.  But  we  should  bear  in  mind  that  the  law  of 
God,  as  revealed  to  us,  is  intended  to  operate  on  our  consciences,  and 
insure  the  performance  of  our  duties  as  individuals  and  Christians. 
The  divine  law  does  not  prescribe  the  form  of  government  under 
which  we  shall  live,  and  the  character  of  our  political  and  civil  insti 
tutions.  Kevelation  has  not  furnished  us  with  a  constitution — a  code 
of  international  law — and  a  system  of  civil  and  municipal  jurispru 
dence.  It  has  not  determined  the  right  of  persons  and  property — 
much  less  the  peculiar  privileges  which  shall  be  awarded  to  each 
class  of  persons  under  any  particular  form  of  government.  God  has 
created  man  in  his  own  image,  and  endowed  him  with  the  right  of 
self-government,  so  soon  as  he  shall  evince  the  requisite  intelligence, 
virtue,  and  capacity  to  assert  and  enjoy  the  privilege.  The  history 
of  world  furnishes  few  examples  where  any  considerable  portion  of 
the  human  race  have  shown  themselves  sufficiently  enlightened  and 
civilized  to  exercise  the  rights  and  enjoy  the  blessings  of  freedom. 
In  Asia  and  Africa  we  find  nothing  but  ignorance,  superstition,  and 
despotism.  Large  portions  of  Europe  and  America  can  scarcely  lay 
claim  to  civilization  and  Christianity;  and  a  still  smaller  portion 
have  demonstrated  their  capacity  for  self-government.  Is  all  this 
contrary  to  the  laws  of  God  ?  And  if  so,  who  is  responsible  ?  The 
civilized  world  have  always  held,  that  when  any  race  of  men  have 
shown  themselves  so  degraded,  by  ignorance,  superstition,  cruelty, ' 
and  barbarism,  as  to  be  utterly  incapable  of  governing  themselves, 
they  must,  in  the  nature  of  things,  be  governed  by  others,  by  such 
laws  as  are  deemed  applicable  to  their  condition.  It  is  upon  this 
principle  alone  that  England  justifies  the  form  of  government  she 
has  established  in  the  Indies,  and  for  some  of  her  other  colonies — • 
that  Kussia  justifies  herself  in  holding  her  serfs  as  slaves,  and  selling 
them  as  a  part  of  the  land  on  which  they  live — that  our  Pilgrim 
Fathers  justified  themselves  in  reducing  the  negro  and  Indian  to 
servitude,  and  selling  them  as  property — that  we  in  Illinois  and 
Host  of  the  free  States,  justify  ourselves  in  denying  the  negro  and 
-16  Indian  the  privilege  of  voting,  and  all  other  political  rights-— and 


28  THE     LIFE     AND      SPEECHES     OF 

that  many  of  the  States  of  the  Union  justify  themselves  in  depriving 
the  white  man  of  the  right  of  the  elective  franchise,  unless  he  is  for 
tunate  enough  to  own  a  certain  amount  of  property. 

These  things  certainly  violate  the  principle  of  absolute  equality 
among  men,  when  considered  as  component  parts  of  apolitical  society 
or  government,  and  so  do  many  provisions  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  as  well  as  the  several  States  of  the  Union.  In  fact,  no 
government  ever  existed  on  earth  in  which  there  was  a  perfect  equality, 
in  all  things,  among  those  composing  it  and  governed  by  it.  Neither 
sacred  nor  profane  history  furnishes  an  example.  If  inequality  in  the 
form  and  principles  of  government  is  therefore  to  be  deemed  a  viola 
tion  of  the  laws  of  God,  and  punishable  as  such,  who  is  to  escape  ? 
Under  this  principle  all  Christendom  is  doomed,  and  no  Pagan  can 
hope  for  mercy  ?  Many  of  these  things  are,  in  my  opinion,  unwise 
and  unjust,  and,  of  course,  subversive  of  republican  principles ;  but 
I  am  not  prepared  to  say  that  they  are  either  sanctioned  or  con 
demned  by  the  divine  law.  Who  can  assert  that  God  has  prescribed 
the  form  and  principles  of  government,  and  the  character  of  the  poli 
tical,  municipal  and  domestic  institutions  of  men  on  earth  ?  This 
doctrine  would  annihilate  the  fundamental  principle  upon  which  our 
political  system  rests.  Our  forefathers  held  that  the  people  had  an 
inherent  right  to  establish  such  Constitution  and  laws  for  the  govern 
ment  of  themselves  and  their  posterity,  as  they  should  deem  best 
calculated  to  insure  the  protection  of  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of 
happiness ;  and  that  the  same  might  be  altered  and  changed  as  expe 
rience  should  satisfy  them  to  be  necessary  and  proper.  Upon  this 
principle  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  was  formed,  and  our 
glorious  Union  established.  All  acts  of  Congress  passed  in  pursuance 
of  the  Constitution  are  declared  to  be  the  supreme  laws  of  the  land, 
and  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  is  charged  with  expound 
ing  the  same.  All  officers  and  magistrates,  under  the  Federal  and 
State  governments — executive,  legislative,  judicial,  and  ministerial — 
are  required  to  take  an  oath  to  support  the  Constitution,  before  they 
can  enter  upon  the  performance  of  their  respective  duties.  Any  citi 
zen,  therefore,  who  in  his  conscience,  believes  that  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  is  in  violation  of  a  "  higher  law,"  has  no  right, 
as  an  honest  man,  to  take  office  under  it,  or  exercise  any  other  func 
tion  of  citizenship  conferred  by  it.  Every  person  born  under  the 
Constitution  owes  allegiance  to  it ;  and  every  naturalized  citizen 
takes  an  oath  support  it.  Fidelity  to  the  Constitution  is  the  only 
passport  to  the  enjoyment  of  rights  under  it.  When  a  senator  elect 
presents  his  credentials,  he  is  not  allowed  to  take  his  seat  until  he 
places  his  hand  upon  the  holy  evangelist,  and  appeals,  to  his  God  for 
the  sincerity  of  his  vows  to  support  the  Constitution.  He,  who  doe:* 
this,  with  a  mental  reservation  or  secret  intention  to  disregard  any 
provision  of  the  Constitution,  commits  a  double  crime — is  morally 
guilty  of  perfidy  to  his  God  and  treason  to  his  country ! 

If  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  is  to  be  repudiated  upon 


STEP  II  EN     A.     DOUGLAS.  29 

the  ground  that  it  is  repugnant  to  the  divine  law,  where  are  the 
friends  of  freedom  and  Christianity  to  look  for  another  and  a  better  ? 
Who  is  to  be  the  prophet  to  reveal  the  will  of  God  and  establish  a 
Theocracy  for  us  ? 

Is  he  to  be  found  in  the  ranks  of  northern  abolitionism,  or  of 
southern  disunion  ;  or  is  the  Common  Council  of  the  city  of  Chicago 
to  have  the  distinguished  honor  of  furnishing  the  chosen  one  ?  I 
will  not  venture  to  inquire  what  are  to  be  the  form  and  principles 
of  the  new  government,  or  to  whom  is  to  be  intrusted  the  execution 
of  its  sacred  functions  ;  for,  when  we  decide  that  the  wisdom  of  our 
revolutionary  fathers  was  foolishness,  and  their  piety  wickedness, 
and  destroy  the  only  system  of  self  government  that  has  ever  real 
ized  the  hopes  of  the  friends  of  freedom,  and  commanded  the  respect 
of  mankind,  it  becomes  us  to  wait  patiently  until  the  purposes  of  the 
Latter  Day  Saints  shall  be  revealed  unto  us. 

For  my  part,  I  am  prepared  to  maintain  and  preserve  inviolate  the 
Constitution  as  it  is  with  all  its  compromises,  to  stand  or  fall  by  the 
American  Union,  clinging  with  the  tenacity  of  life  to  all  its  glorious 
memories  of  the  past  and  precious  hopes  for  the  future. 

Mr.  Douglas  then  explained  the  circumstances  which  rendered  his 
absence  unavoidable  when  the  vote  was  taken  on  the  fugitive  bill 
in  the  Senate.  He  wished  to  avoid  no  responsibility  on  account  of 
that  absence,  and  therefore  desired  it  to  be  distinctly  understood  that 
he  should  have  voted  for  the  bill  if  he  could  have  been  present.  He 
referred  to  several  of  our  most  prominent  and  respected  citizens  by 
name,  as  personally  cognizant  of  the  fact  that  he  was  anxious  at  that 
time  to  give  that  vote.  He  believed  the  passage  of  that  or  some 
other  efficient  law  a  solemn  duty,  imperatively  demanded  by  the 
Constitution.  In  conclusion,  Mr.  I),  made  an  earnest  appeal  to  our 
citizens  to  rally  as  one  man  to  the  defence  of  the  Constitution  and 
laws,  and  above  all  things,  and  under  all  circumstances,  to  put  down 
violence  and  disorder,  by  maintaining  the  supremacy  of  the  laws. 
He  referred  to  our  high  character  for  law  and  order  heretofore,  and 
also  to  the  favorable  position  of  our  city  for  commanding  the  trade 
between  the  JSTorth  and  South,  through  our  canals  and  railroads,  to 
show  that  our  views  and  principles  of  action  should  be  broad,  liberal, 
and  national,  calculated  to  encourage  union  and  harmony,  instead  of 
disunion  and  sectional  bitterness.  He  concluded  by  remarking,  that 
he  considered  this  question  of  fidelity  to  the  Constitution  and  supre 
macy  of  the  laws,  as  so  far  paramount  to  all  other  considerations, 
that  he  had  prepared  some  resolutions  to  cover  these  points  only, 
which  he  would  submit  to  the  meeting,  and  take  their  judgment  upon 
them.  If  he  had  consulted  his  own  feelings  and  views  only,  he 
should  have  embraced  in  the  resolutions  a  specific  approval  of  all  the 
measures  of  the  compromise  ;  but  as  the  question  of  rebellion  and 
resistance  to  the  Federal  Government  has  been  distinctly  presented, 
it  has  been  thought  advisable  to  meet  that  issue  on  this  occasion,  dis 
tinct  and  separate  from  all  others. 


30  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

Mr.  Douglas  then  offered  the  following  resolutions,  which  were 
adopted  without  a  dissenting  voice  : 

Resolved,  That  it  is  the  sacred  duty  of  every  friend  of  the  Union  to  maintain, 
and  preserve  inviolate,  every  provision  of  our  federal  Constitution. 

Resolved,  That  any  law  enacted  by  Congress,  in  pursuance  of  the  Constitu 
tion,  should  be  respected  as  such  by  all  good  and  law-abiding  citizens,  and 
should  be  faithfully  carried  into  effect  by  the  officers  charged  with  its  execution. 

Resolved,  That  so  long  as  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  provides,  that 
all  persons  held  to  service  or  labor  in  one  State,  escaping  into  another  State, 
"SHALL  BE  DELIVERED  UP  on  the  claim  of  the  party  to  whom  the  service  or 
labor  may  be  due,"  and  so  long  as  members  of  Congress  are  required  to  take 
an  oath  to  support  the  Constitution,  it  is  their  solemn  and  religious  duty  to  pass 
all  laws  necessary  to  carry  that  provision  of  the  Constitution  into  effect. 

Resolved,  That  if  we  desire  to  preserve  the  Union,  and  render  our  great 
Republic  inseparable  and  perpetual,  we  must  perform  all  our  obligations  under 
the  Constitution,  at  the  same  time  that  we  call  upon  our  brethren  in  other 
States  to  yield  implicit  obedience  to  it. 

Resolved,  That  as  the  lives,  property  and  safety  of  ourselves  and  our  families 
depend  upon  the  observance  and  protection  of  the  laws,  every  effort  to  excite 
any  portion  of  our  population  to  make  resistance  to  the  due  execution  of  the 
laws  of  the  land,  should  be  promptly  and  emphatically  condemned  by  every 
good  citizen. 

Resolved,  That  we  will  stand  or  fall  by  the  American  Union  and  its  Constitu 
tion,  with  all  its  compromises,  with  its  glorious  memories  of  the  past  and  pre 
cious  hope  of  the  future. 

[The  following  was  offered  in  addition  by  B.  S.  Morris,  and  also 
adopted :] 

Resolved,  That  we,  the  people  of  Chicago,  repudiate  the  resolutions  passed 
by  the  Common  Council  of  Chicago  upon  the  subject  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law 
passed  by  Congress  at  its  last  session. 

On  the  succeeding  night  the  common  council  of  the  city  repealed 
their  nullifying  resolution  by  a  vote  of  12  to  1. 


STEPHEN     A.DOUGLAS.  31 


ON  THE  CLAYTON  BULWEK  TEEATY. 

Delivered  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  March  10  and  17,  18.j:j. 

On  returning  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  at  the 
special  session,  commencing  on  the  4th  March,  1843,  Senator 
Clayton,  of  Delaware,  offered  the  following  resolutions  : 

Resolved,  That  the  President  be  respectfully  requested,  if  compatible  in  his 
opinion  with  the  public  interest,  to  communicate  to  the  Senate  the  propositions 
mentioned  in  the  letter  of  the  secretary  of  state  accompanying  the  Executive 
message  to  the  Senate  of  the  18th  February  last,  as  having  been  agreed  upon 
by  the  Department  of  State,  the  British  minister,  and  the  state  of  Costa  Kica, 
on  the  30th  of  April,  1852,  having  for  their  object  the  settlement  of  the  terri 
torial  controversies  between  the  states  and  governments  bordering  on  the 
river  San  Juan. 

Resolved,  That  the  secretary  of  state  be  directed  to  communicate  to  the 
Senate  such  information  as  it  maybe  in  the  power  of  his  department  to  furnish, 
in  regard  to  the  conflicting  claims  of  Great  Britain  and  the  state  of  Honduras, 
to  the  island  of  Eoatan,  Bonacca,  Utilla,  Barbarat,  Helcne,  arid  Morat,  in  or 
near  the  Bay  of  Honduras. 

On  the  8th  and  9th  of  March,  1853,  he  addressed  the 
Senate  on  the  subject,  and  arraigned  Senators  Cass,  Mason, 
and  Douglas,  for  the  part  they  had  taken  in  the  debate 
during  the  regular  session.  On  the  10th  of  March,  Mr. 
Douglas  replied  as  follows : 

ME.  PEESIDENT  :  I  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  controversy  which 
has  arisen  between  the  senator  from  Delaware  (Mr.  Clayton)  and 
my  venerable  friend  from  Michigan  (Mr.  Cass),  who  is  now  absent 
in  consequence  of  the  severe  illness  of  one  nearest  and  dearest  to 
him.  We  all  know  enough  of  that  senator  to  be  assured  that  when 
he  shall  be  in  his  place,  he  will  be  prompt  to  respond  to  any  calls 
that  may  be  made  upon  him.  Neither  have  I  anything  to  do  with 
the  dispute  which  has  grown  up  among  senators  in  respect  to  the 
boundary  of  Central  America,  and  the  position  of  the  British  settle 
ment  at  the  Balize.  I  leave  that  in  the  hands  of  those  who  have 
made  themselves  parties  to  the  controversy.  Nor  shall  I  become  a 
party  to  the  discussion  upon  the  issue  between  the  senator  from 
Delaware  and  the  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations, 
in  their  report  on  that  question.  Not  having  been  present  when  the 
committee  made  their  report,  and  not  yet  having  had  the  opportunity 
of  reading  it,  I  leave  the  chairman  of  the  committee  to  vindicate  his 


32  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

positions,  as  I  doubt  not  he  will  prove  himself  abundantly  able  to  do. 
I  have,  therefore,  only  to  ask  the  attention  of  the  Senate  to  such 
points  as  the  senator  from  Delaware  has  chosen  to  make  against  a 
speech  delivered  by  me  a  few  weeks  ago  in  this  chamber. 

The  senator  seems  to  complain  that  I  should  have  questioned  the 
propriety  of  withholding  from  the  consideration  of  the  Senate  what 
is  known  as  the  Ilise  treaty,  and  the  substitution  of  the  Clayton  and 
Bulwer  treaty  in  its  place.  Those  two  treaties  presented  a  distinct 
issue  of  great  public  concern  to  the  country;  and  it  \vas  a  difference 
of  opinion  between  him  and  me  as  to  which  system  of  policy  should 
prevail.  I  advocated  that  system  which  would  secure  to  the  United 
States  the  sole  and  exclusive  privilege  of  controlling  the  communi 
cation  between  the  two  oceans,  lie  substituted  that  other  policy 
which  opened  the  privilege  to  a  partnership  between  the  United 
States  and  Great  Britain.  The  senator  has  assigned  various 
reasons  for  withholding  the  Hise  treaty  from  the  consideration  of 
the  Senate.  The  first  is,  that  it  was  concluded  by  Mr.  Ilise  without 
the  authority  of  this  government.  That  may  be  true,  but  it  is  the 
first  time  I  have  heard  it  argued  as  a  valid  reason  for  withholding 
from  the  consideration  of  the  Senate  a  treaty  the  objects  and  pro 
visions  of  which  were  desirable.  The  treaty  with  New  Granada, 
which  he  so  warmly  commends  in  his  speech,  was  made  by  Mr.  Bid- 
lack  without  authority.  President  Polk  stated  this  fact  in  his 
message  communicating  the  treaty  to  the  Senate,  and  the  senator 
from  Delaware  has  read  that  message  and  incorporated  it  into  his 
speech,  lie  therefore  knew  that  fact  when  lie  gave  as  a  reason  for 
withholding  the  Hise  treaty,  that  it  was  made  without  authority. 

The  treaty  of  peace  with  Mexico,  to  the  provisions  of  which  the 
senator  has  also  referred  on  another  point,  was  entered  into  by  Mr. 
Trist,  not  only  without  authority,  but  in  bold  defiance  of  the  instruc 
tions  of  our  government  to  the  contrary.  The  administration  of 
President  Polk  did  not  feel  at  liberty  to  withhold  these  two  treaties 
from  the  Senate,  merely  because  they  were  made  without  authority 
or  in  defiance  of  instructions,  for  the  reason  that  the  objects  intended 
to  be  accomplished  by  the  treaty  were  desirable,  and  the  provisions 
could  be  so  modified  by  the  Senate  as  to  make  the  details  conform  to 
the  objects  in  view.  It  may  not  be  amiss  for  me  to  remind  the 
senator  from  Delaware,  that  he  was  a  member  of  the  Senate  at  tho 
time  the  Mexican  treaty  was  submitted  for  ratification,  and  that  he 
voted  for  it,  notwithstanding  it  was  concluded  in  opposition  to  the 
instructions  of  our  government.  If,  therefore,  the  senator  has  any 
respect  for  the  practice  of  the  government  heretofore,  or  for  his  own 
votes^recorded  upon  the  very  point  in  controversy,  he  is  not  at  liberty 
to  object  to  the  treaty  upon  the  ground  that  it  was  concluded  by  our 
diplomatic  agent  without  authority. 

1  understand  the  rule  to  be  this :  whenever  the  treaty  is  made  in 
pursuance  of  instructions,  the  Executive  is  under  an  implied  obliga 
tion  to  submit  it  to  the  Senate  foi  ratification.  But  if  it  be  entered 


STEPHEN      A.DOUGLAS.  33 

into  without  authority,  or  in  violation  of  instructions,  the  admin 
istration  are  at  liberty  to  reject  it  unconditionally,  or  to  send  it  to 
the  Senate  for  advice,  amendment,  ratification,  or  rejection,  according 
to  their  judgment  of  its  merits.  Whether  the  Hise  treaty  was  per 
fect  in  all  its  provisions,  or  contained  obnoxious  features,  is  not  the 
question.  It  furnished  conclusive  evidence  that  the  government  of 
Nicaragua  was  willing  and  anxious  to  confer  upon  the  United  States 
the  exclusive  and  perpetual  privilege  of  controlling  the  canal  between 
the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  oceans,  instead  of  a  partnership  between  us 
and  the  European  powers.  The  senator  from  Delaware  (then  secre 
tary  of  state)  had  the  opportunity  of  securing  to  his  own  country 
that  inestimable  privilege,  either  by  submitting  the  Hise  treaty  to 
the  Senate,  with  the  recommendation  that  it  be  so  modified  as  to 
obviate  all  the  objections  which  he  deemed  to  exist  to  some  of  its 
provisions,  or  by  making  a  new  treaty  which  should  embrace  the 
principle  of  an  exclusive  and  perpetual  privilege  without  any  of  the 
obnoxious  provisions.  He  did  not  do  either.  He  suppressed  the 
treaty — refused  to  accept  of  an  exclusive  privilege  to  his  own 
country — and  caused  a  new  treaty  to  be  made,  which  should  lay  the 
foundation  of  a  partnership  between  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain  and  the  other  European  powers. 

The  next  reason  assigned  for  withholding  theHise  treaty  from  the 
Senate  is  that  it  had  not  been  approved  by  Nicaragua.  It  is  true 
that  Nicaragua  did  not  ratify  that  treaty  ;  but  why  did  she  fail  to  do 
so  ?  I  showed  conclusively  in  the  speech  to  which  the  senator  was 
replying  that  the  non-approval  was  in  consequence  of  his  instructions, 
as  secretary  of  state,  to  Mr.  Squier,  our  charge  d'affaires  to  Nicaragua. 
It  required  the  whole  influence  of  the  representative  of  our  govern 
ment  in  that  country  to  prevent  the  ratification  and  approval  of  the 
Hise  treaty  by  the  state  of  Nicaragua.  Sir,  it  is  not  a  satisfactory 
reason  for  suppressing  the  treaty,  therefore,  that  it  had  not  been 
ratified  by  the  other  party,  when  the  non-ratification  was  produced 
by  the  action  of  the  agent  of  this  government  in  pursuance  of  in 
structions. 

ME.  CLAYTON. — I  desire  distinctly  to  understand  the  senator.  If 
I  understood  him,  he  said  that  Mr.  Hise's  treaty  was  rejected  in 
consequence  of  Mr.  Squier's  interference. 

MR.  DOUGLAS. — Yes,  sir. 

MR.  CLAYTON. — And  then  I  understand  him  to  say  that  Mr.  Squier 
did  it  by  instruction. 

MR.  DOUGLAS. — Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  CLAYTON. — Now  will  the  senator  submit  the  truth  to  sub 
stantiate  that  assertion?  I  know  of  no  such  instruction. 

MR.  DOUGLAS. — I  will  do  that  with  a  great  deal  of  pleasure.  Mr. 
Hise  was  sent  to  the  Central  American  States  by  Mr.  Polk.  lie 
negotiated  a  treaty  with  the  state  of  Nicaragua — the  treaty  in 
question — on  the  21st  of  June,  1849.  Prior  to  that  time  ho  had 
been  recalled,  and  Mr.  Squier  had  been  appointed  by  the  administra 

2* 


34:  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

tion  which  succeeded  that  of  President  Polk.  Mr.  Hise  had  re 
ceived  no  knowledge  of  his  removal ;  no  instructions  from  the  new 
administration  at  the  time  when  he  made  the  treaty.  In  the  in 
structions  which  the  secretary  of  state  gave  to  Mr.  Squier  on  the 
2d  of  May,  1849,  when  he  was  about  to  proceed  to  Central  America 
to  supersede  Mr.  Hise,  you  will  find  that  he  was  directed  to  "claim 
no  peculiar  privilege ;  no  exclusive  right ;  no  monopoly  of  com 
mercial  intercourse  "  for  the  United  States.  I  will  read  from  the 
letter  of  instructions : 

"We  should  naturally  be  proud  of  such  an  achievement  as  an  American 
work  ;  but  if  European  aid  be  necessary  to  accomplish  it,  why  should  we  re 
pudiate  it,  seeing  that  our  object  is  as  honest  as  it  is  openly  avowed,  to  claim 
no  peculiar  privilege  ;  no  exclusive  right;  no  monopoly  of  commercial  inter 
course,  but  to  see  that  the  work  is  dedicated  to  the  benefit  of  mankind,  to  be 
used  by  all  on  the  same  terms  with  us,  and  consecrated  to  the  enjoyment  and 
diffusion  of  the  unnumbered  and  inestimable  blessings  which  must  flow  from  it 
to  all  the  civilized  world  !" 

Then,  sir,  after  having  instructed  Mr.  Squier  as  to  the  character 
of  the  treaty  which  he  was  to  form — a  treaty  which  was  to  open  the 
canal  to  the  world — a  treaty  which  was  to  give  us  no  peculiar 
privilege,  and  secure  to  us  no  exclusive  right — after  giving  that  in 
struction,  the  secretary,  in  the  concluding  paragraph,  says  : 

"If  a  charter  or  grant  of  the  right  of  way  shall  have  been  incautiously  or 
inconsiderately  made  before  your  arrival  in  that  country,  seek  to  have  it 
properly  modified  to  answer  the  ends  we  have  in  view." 

MK.  CLAYTOX. — Is  that  the  passage  ? 

ME.  DOUGLAS. — That  and  the  other  together. 

ME.  CLAYTON. — I  endeavored  to  correct  the  misapprehension  of 
the  honorable  senator  yesterday  in  reference  to  that.  That  is  not 
an  instruction  to  the  minister  to  Central  America  in  regard  to  the 
treaty  made  by  Mr.  Hise,  or  any  other  treaty.  It  is  a  direction  to 
the  minister  to  Central  America  to  see  that  any  contract  which  had 
been  made  by  the  local  government  should  be  so  made  as  not  to  be 
assignable.  If  the  gentleman  will  read  the  context,  he  will  see  at 
once  that  that  does  not  allude  to  a  treaty.  It  is  merely,  I  say  again, 
an  instruction  to  the  minister  in  that  country  to  look  to  it,  that  the 
capitalists  who  were  about  to  construct  the  canal  should  not  specu 
late  upon  the  work.  There  is  nothing  there  touching  a  treaty  ; 
nothing  whatever.  The  gentleman  is  entirely  mistaken.  The  whole 
construction  is  in  reference  to  the  character  of  the  contract  o* 
charter. 

ME.  DOUGLAS. — I  will  read  the  preceding  sentence,  and  we  will  see 
then  who  is  mistaken  : 

"  If  they  do.  not  agree  to  grant  us  passage  on  reasonable  and  proper  terms, 
refuse  our  protection  and  our  countenance  to  procure  the  contract  from 
Nicaragua  " 


STEP  II  EN     A.     DOUGLAS.  35 

ME.  CLAYTON. — If  the  gentleman  will  look  at  the  context  which 
goes  before,  he  will  see  that  the  word  "  they  "  refers  to  the  capitalists. 
ME.  DOUGLAS. — I  will  read  what  goes  before  : 

"See  that  it  is  not  assignable  to  others;  that  no  exclusive  privileges  are 
granted  to  any  nation  that  will  not  agree  to  the  same  treaty  stipulations  with 
Nicaragua ;  that  the  tolls  to  bs  demanded  by  the  owners  are  not  unreasonable 
or  oppressive  ;  that  no  power  be  reserved  to  the  proprietors  of  the  canal  or 
their  successors  to  extort  at  any  time  hereafter,  or  unjustly  to  obstruct  or 
embarrass  the  right  of  passage.  This  will  require  all  your  vigilance  and  skill. 
if  they  do  not  agree  to  grant  us  passage  on  reasonable  and  proper  terms,  re- 
vase  our  protection  and  our  countenance  to  procure  the  contract  from 
Yicaragua.  If  a  charter  or  grant  of  the  right  of  way  shall  have  been  incau 
tiously  or  inconsiderately  made  before  your  arrival  in  that  country,  seek  to 
ta,ve  it  properly  modified  to  answer  the  ends  we  have  in  view." 

ME.  CLAYTON. — The  honorable  senator  will  observe  that  that  does 
lot  refer  to  a  treaty.  The  grant  of  the  right  of  way  was  a  different 
"iiing.  It  was  a  contract  between  the  local  government  and  the 
capitalists.  Not  a  treaty  at  all. 

ME.  DOUGLAS. — The  senator's  explanation  is  doubtless  satisfactory 
to  himself.  He  may  imagine  that  it  will  suit  his  present  purposes  to 
place  upon  his  instructions  the  construction  for  which  he  now  con 
tends  ;  but  it  is  wholly  unwarranted  by  the  language  he  employed. 
His  instructions  speak  of  securing  the  right  of  way  to  "us."  To 
whom  did  he  allude  in  the  word  "us?"  Did  he  refer  to  the 
capitalists,  proprietors  and  speculators,  who  should  become  the 
owners  of  the  charter  ?  Was  he  one  of  the  company,  and  therefore 
authorized  to  use  the  word  "us,"  when  speaking  of  the  rights  and 
privileges  to  be  acquired  of  a  foreign  nation  through  his  agency  as 
secretary  of  state  ?  I  have  supposed  that  Mr.  Squier  was  sent  to 
Central  America  to  represent  the  United  States,  and  to  protect  our 
rights  and  interests  as  a  nation.  I  have  always  done  the  senator 
from  Delaware  the  justice  to  believe  that  when  he  gave  those  in 
structions  to  Mr.  Squier  he  was  acting  on  behalf  of  his  country  to 
secure  the  right  of  way  for  a  canal  to  the  United  States  and  not  to  a 
few  capitalists-  and  speculators  under  the  title  of  "us."  For  the 
honor  of  our  country  I  will  still  do  him  that  justice,  notwithstanding 
his  disclaimer.  His  instructions  also  speak  of  the  right  of  way  to 
"natiQns,"  and  caution  Mr.  Squier  to  see  that  "no  exclusive  privi 
leges  are  granted  to  any  nation,"  etc. 

It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  in  the  instructions  relating  to  the  secur 
ing  the  right  of  way  for  a  canal  to  the  nations  of  the  earth,  Mr. 
Squier  was  directed  to  see  that  no  exclusive  privilege  was  granted 
to  any  other  nation,  and  not  to  claim  any  peculiar  advantages  for 
our  own.  Then  follows  the  concluding  paragraph,  which  has  been 
read: 

"  If  a  charter  or  grant  of  the  rights  of  way  shall  have  been  incautiously  or  in 
considerately  made  before  your  arrival  in  the  country,  seek  to  have  it  properly 
modified  to  answer  the  ends  we  have  in  view." 

Modified  how  ?     If  before  the  arrival  of  Mr.  Squier  in  the  country 


36  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

Mr.  Hise  shall  have  acquired  a  charter  or  grant  which  si  ill  secure 
peculiar  privileges  or  exclusive  rights  for  this  country,  te  was  to 
seek  to  have  it  so  modified  as  to  open  the  same  rights  and  privileges 
to  all  other  nations  on  equal  terms.  This  is  what  I  understand  to 
be  the  meaning  of  those  instructions,  and  it  is  clear  that  Mr.  Squier 
understood  them  in  the  same  way ;  for  when  he  arrived  in  Nicaragua, 
and  discovered,  by  a  statement  in  a  newspaper  of  the  Isthmus,  that 
Mr.  Hise  was  about  making  a  treaty  for  a  canal,  without  knowing 
what  its  terms  were,  without  waiting  to  ascertain  its  provisions,  he 
sent  at  once  a  notice  to  #ie  government  of  Nicaragua,  that  Mr.  Hise 
was  not  authorized  to  treat — that  he  did  not  understand  the  policy 
and  views  of  the  new  administration — that  he  had  been  recalled, 
and  that  any  treaty  he  might  make  must  be  considered  and  treated 
as  an  unofficial  act.  He  communicated  this  protest  to  the  secretary 
of  state  on  the  same  day,  and  then  proceeded  to  his  point  of  destina 
tion,  where  he  made  a  treaty  for  the  right  of  way  for  a  canal  to  all 
nations  on  the  partnership  plan  in  pursuance  of  his  instructions. 
These  two  treaties — the  Hise  treaty  and  the  Squier  treaty — were  in 
the  Department  of  State  at  the  same  time — the  one  having  arrived 
about  the  middle  of  September,  and  the  other  about  the  first  of 
October.  It  then  became  the  duty  of  the  senator  from  Delaware,  as 
secretary  of  state,  to  decide  between  them :  in  other  words,  to  de 
termine  whether  he  would  accept  of  an  exclusive  privilege  to  hia 
own  country,  or  enter  into  partnership  with  the  monarchies  of 
Europe.  He  did  determine  that  question,  and  his  decision  was  in 
favor  of  the  partnership,  and  against  his  own  country  having  the 
exclusive  control  of  the  canal. 

Then,  sir,  I  think  I  was  authorized  to  say  what  I  did  say,  that  the 
non-ratification  of  Hise  treaty  by  the  government  of  Nicaragua  was 
procured  by  the  agent  of  General  Taylor's  administration  in  that 
country,  and  that  the  agent  acted  under  the  authority  of  this  go 
vernment.  He  certainly  acted  in  obedience  to  what  he  understood 
to  be  his  instruction,  and  that  is,  the  instruction,  that  if  such  a  char 
ter  had  been  incautiously  granted,  to  seek  to  have  it  modified  to  con 
form  to  the  ends  had  in  view,  as  stated  in  the  instruction. 

ME.  CLAYTOX. — Will  the  senator  allow  me  to  interrupt  him  ?  It 
is  not  a  very  material  point,  still  it  is  better  to  have  it  right  than 
wrong.  If  the  senator  will  only  read  the  last  paragraph,  he  will  see 
that  the  charter  or  grant  of  the  right  of  way  which  Mr.  Squier  was 
instructed  to  see  was  not  incautiously  made,  was  a  very  different 
thing,  indeed,  from  the  treaty  ;  and  he  will  see  that  that  is  the  thing 
which  I  directed  the  minister  to  look  to,  as  I  stated,  and  endeavored 
to  be  understood  yesterday,  and  as  I  was  anxious  to  be  understood 
by  the  gentleman  on  this  point — what  I  instructed  the  minister  to 
look  to  was  that  the  contract  of  these  capitalists  should  not  be  such 
as  would  enable  them  to  extort  from  persons  using  the  canal.  The 
last  sentence  of  the  instruction  applies,  if  he  will  look  at  it  excli 
eively  to  the  case  of  the  contract,  and  not  to  that  rf  the  treaty. 


STEPHEN     A.    DOUGLAS.  37 

^  One  remark  more :  How  is  it  possible  for  the  gentleman  to  recon 
cile  the  fact,  that  the  State  Department  could  know  or  imagine  that 
Mr.  Hise  had  made  a  treaty  on  the  2d  of  May,  1850,  when  those  in 
structions  were  given,  when,  in  "point  of  fact,  Mr.  Hise  was  not 
heard  from  until  June  afterward  ?  How  could  I  imagine  any  such 
thing  ?  And  again :  how  could  I  possibly  suppose  that  Mr.  Hise 
had  made  a  treaty,  or  was  going  to  make  a  treaty,  when  the  records 
of  the  State  Department  showed  me  the  instructions  given  to  him 
by  Mr.  Buchanan,  in  which  he  tells  Mr.  Hise  to  make  no  treaty 
whatever  with  Nicaragua?  If  the  gentleman  can  reconcile  these 
things,  I  should  be  happy  to  hear  him. 

ME.  DOUGLAS. — I  will  have  less  difficulty  in  reconciling  these  things 
with  my  views  of  his  instructions  than  he  will  with  his  construction 
of  them.  I  have  already  shown  that  the  instructions  related  to  the 
Light  of  way  to  nations  and  not  to  individuals ;  that  they  were  in 
favor  of  equal  rights  to  all  nations,  and  opposed  to  any  peculiar  pri 
vileges  to  our  own  country.  Is  it  not  as  reasonable  to  suppose  that 
the  instructions  meant  what  they  said,  as  it  is  to  conceive  that  our 
minister  was  directed  to  procure  the  modification  of  contracts  pre 
viously  entered  into  with  individuals,  and  for  the  observance  of 
which  Nicaragua  was  supposed  to  have  pledged  her  faith  as  a  nation? 
Was  our  minister  sent  there  to  represent  individuals  in  their  schemes 
of  procuring  charters  and  contracts  on  private  account,  or  to  inter 
fere  with  and  prevent  the  faithful  observance  of  such  contracts  as 
that  government  might  previously  have  made  with  our  own  citizens 
or  others?  While  this  supposition  might  extricate  the  senator  from 
his  present  difficulty  on  this  point,  it  would  not  tend  to  elevate  the 
character  of  our  diplomacy  during  his  administration  of  the  State 
Department.  I  think  I  do  the  senator  more  justice  by  the  construc 
tion  I  have  put  upon  his  conduct  than  he  does  by  his  own  explana 
tion. 

But,  sir,  I  wish  to  know  whether  I  understand  the  senator  now  ? 
Does  he  wish  now  to  be  understood  as  saying  that  he  preferred  an 
exclusive  privilege  to  his  own  country  to  a  partnership  with  Eng 
land? 

ME.  CLAYTON". — No,  sir. 

ME.  DOUGLAS. — Ah !  then  as  he  did  not  prefer  the  exclusive  pri 
vilege  to  a  partnership  with  the  European  powers,  does  he  wish  the 
Senate  to  understand  that  he  did  not  mean  to  convey  his  true  idea 
in  his  instructions  ?  If  he  preferred  the  partnership  to  the  exclusive 
privilege,  was  it  not  his  duty  to  make  known  that  wish  in  his  in 
structions  ?  Why  should  he  complain  when  I  show  that  by  his  in 
structions  he  said  precisely  what  he  now  avows  to  be  his  policy 
upon  that  subject  ?  Why,  sir,  I  am  defending  the  consistency  of  his 
own  opinions,  according  to  his  present  views,  by  showing  that  his 
instructions  embraced  what  he  says  now  was  his  true  policy — in 
favor  of  a  partnership  with  other  nations,  instead  of  an  exclusive 
privilege  to  our  own  country. 


38  THE     LIFE     AND      SPEECHES     OF 

But,  sir,  whatever  may  have  been  his  meaning  in  those  instruc 
tions,  it  is  undeniable  that  Mr.  Squier  understood  them  as  I  now  do, 
an-d  acted  upon  them  accordingly.  Hence,  as  I  have  already  re- 
maiked,  before  he  arrived  upon  the  theatre  of  his  operations,  and 
upon  the  mere  authority  of  a  newspaper  paragraph,  that  Mr.  Hise 
was  about  making  such  a  treaty,  he  sent  ahead  a  messenger  to  in 
form  the  government  of  Nicaragua  that  Mr.  Hise  had  no  autho 
rity  to  treat  upon  the  subject — that  he  had  been  recalled — that  he 
was  not  informed  of  the  views  and  purposes  of  the  new  administra 
tion — and  that  whatever  treaty  he  made  must  be  regarded  and 
treated  as  an  unofficial  act — and  requesting  that  "new  negotiations 
may  be  entered  upon  at  the  seat  of  government." 

The  new  negotiations  were  immediately  opened  accordingly,  and 
on  the  3d  of  September  terminated  in  a  treaty,  which  was  a  substi 
tute  for  that  which  Mr.  Hise  had  previously  made.  I  do  not  under 
stand  that  the  Hise  treaty  was  formally  rejected  or  disavowed  by 
the  government  of  Nicaragua.  It  was  treated  as  an  unofficial  act — 
a  mere  nullity — upon  the  authority  of  Mr.  Squier's  protest.  I  again 
submit  the  question  to  the  Senate,  therefore,  whether  I  am  not  fully 
justified  in  the  statement  that  the  non-approval  of  the  Hise  treaty 
by  the  government  of  Nicaragua  was  in  consequence  of  the  action 
of  the  agent  of  this  government  in  that  country,  under  the  instruc 
tions  of  the  senator  from  Delaware  as  secretary  of  state  ?  I  am 
only  surprised  that  he  should  attempt  to  avoid  the  responsibility  of 
the  act,  since,  when  hard  pressed  in  this  discussion,  he  has  been 
driven  into  the  admission  that  he  preferred  a  partnership  with  the 
monarchies  of  the  Old  "World  to  an  exclusive  privilege  for  his  own 
country.  If  such  were  his  opinions  and  preferences,  he  was  bound 
by  every  consideration  of  duty  and  patriotism  to  have  given  the  in 
structions,  and  produced  the  result  which  I  have  attributed  to  him. 
"Why  not  avow  that  which  he  now  acknowledges  to  have  been  his 
purpose,  in  obedience  to  what  he  conceived  to  be  his  duty  ?  I  only 
ask  him  to  assume  the  responsibility  and  consequences  of  his  own 
conduct,  and  then  to  assign  such  reasons  as  he  may  be  able  in  justi 
fication. 

The  next  reason  which  he  gives  for  suppressing  the  Hise  treaty  is 
totally  inconsistent  with  the  first.  He  alleges  that  the  clause  guar 
anteeing  the  independence  of  Nicaragua  was  wholly  inadmissible,  and 
could  never  receive  his  sanction.  In  a  report  which  was  communi 
cated  to  the  House  of  Representatives  in  1850,  he  assigned  the  same 
reason,  and  stated  that  such  a  guaranty  was  a  departure  from  our 
uniform  policy,  and  had  no  precedent  in  our  history  except  in  the  one 
case  of  the  French  colonies  in  America. 

Of  course  courtesy  requires  me  to  acknowledge  that  the  senator 
really  believes  that  this  was  one  of  the  reasons  which  induced  him 
to  withhold  the  Hise  treaty  from  the  Senate.  I  must  be  permitted, 
however,  to  inform  him  that  he  is  entirely  mistaken :  that  the  clause 
in  question  did  not  constitute  an  objection  in  his  mind  at  that  time 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  39 

that  it  is  an  afterthought  which  lie  has  since  seized  hold  of  to  justify 
an  act  which  he  had  previously  performed  upon  totally  different 
grounds.  The  evidence  of  these  facts  will  be  found  recorded  in  a 
dispatch  written  by  the  senator  from  Delaware,  as  secretary  of  state, 
on  the  20th  of  October,  1849,  to  Mr.  Lawrence,  our  minister  to  Eng 
land.  The  document  containing  this  dispatch  was  printed  arid  laid 
upon  our  tables  a  few  days  since,  and  is  entitled  Senate  Ex.  Doc.  No. 
27.  It  will  be  remembered  that  the  Hise  treaty  was  communicated 
to  the  Department  of  State  on  the  15th  of  September,  and  theSqnier 
treaty  about  the  first  of  October  of  the  same  year.  On  the  20th  of 
October,  Mr.  Clayton  (in  the  dispatch  to  which  I  refer),  discussed  our 
relations  with  the  Central  American  states  at  great  length — among 
other  things  communicated  to  Mr.  Lawrence  the  substance  of  these 
two  treaties — and  directed  him  to  make  the  same  known  to  Lord 
Palmerston.  I  read  from  the  dispatch: 

"If,  however,  the  British  government  shall  reject  these  overtures  on  onrpart, 
and  shall  refuse  to  cooperate  with  us  in  the  generous  and  philanthropic  scheme 
of  rendering  the  interoceanic  communication  by  the  way  of  the  port  and  river 
San  Juan  free  to  ail  nations  upon  the  same  terms,  we  shall  deem  ourselves  jus 
tified  in  protecting  our  interests  independently  of  her  aid,  and  despite  her  op 
position  or  hostility.  With  a  view  to  this  alternative,  we  have  a  treaty  with 
the  state  of  Nicaragua,  a  copy  of  which  has  been  sent  to  you,  and  the  stipula 
tions  of  which  you  should  unreservedly  impart  to  Lord  Palmerston.  You  will 
inform  him,  however,  that  this  treaty  was  concluded  without  a  power  or  in 
struction  from  this  government;  that  the  President  had  no  knowledge  of  its 
existence,  of  the  intention  to  form  it,  until  it  was  presented  to  him  by  Mr. 
Hise,  our  late  charge  d'affaires  to  Guatemala,  about  the  1st  of  September  last ; 
and  that,  consequently,  we  are  not  bound  to  ratify  it,  and  will  take  no  step  for 
that  purpose,  if  we  can,  by  arrangements  with  the  British  government,  place 
our  interests  upon  a  just  and  satisfactory  foundation.  But,  if  our  effort  for  this 
end  should  be  abortive,  the  President  will  not  hesitate  to  submit  this  or  some 
other  treaty  which  maybe  concluded  by  the  present  charge"  d'affaires  to  Gua 
temala,  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  for  their  advice  and  consent,  with  a 
view  to  its  ratification ;  and  if  that  enlightened  body  should  approve  it,  he  also 
will  give  it  his  hearty  sanction,  and  will  exert  all  his  constitutional  power  to 
execute  its  provisions  in  good  faith — a  determination  in  which  he  may  confi 
dently  count  upon  the  goodwill  of  the  people  of  the  United  States." 

Here  we  find  the  true  reason  assigned  for  withholding  the  Hise 
treaty  from  the  Senate.  It  was  to  induce  Great  Britain  to  enter  into 
partnership  with  us.  Lord  Palmerston  is  informed  that  if  Great  Bri 
tain  refuses  our  offer  of  a  partnership,  that  u  we  shall  deem  ourselves 
justified  in  protecting  our  interests  independently  of  her  aid,  and  in 
despite  of  her  opposition  or  hostility,"  and  that  u  with  a  view  to  this 
alternative,"  he  held  the  Hise  treaty  in  reserve,  to  be  submitted  to 
the  Senate  for  ratification  or  not,  dependent  upon  the  decision  of 
Great  Britain  in  relation  to  the  partnership.  This  is  the  only  reason 
assigned  for  withholding  the  treaty  from  the  Senate.  The  pretext 
that  it  was  made  without  authority  is  expressly  negatived  by  the 
threat  to  accept  the  exclusive  privilege,  in  the  event  that  England 
refuses  to  enter  into  the  partnership.  Not  a  word  of  objection  that 


40  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES      OF 

it  guarantees  the  independence  of  Nicaragua  I  But  the  testimony 
does  not  stop  here.  This  same  dispatch  furnishes  affirmative  evi 
dence — conclusive  and  undeniable — that  the  u  guaranty"  constituted 
no  portion  of  his  objection  to  the  Hise  treaty — was  not  deemed  ob 
jectionable  by  him  at  that  time — but,  on  the  contrary,  was  looked 
upon  with  favor,  and  actually  proposed  by  Mr.  Clayton  himself  as  a 
desirable  provision  which  might  be  incorporated  into  a  treaty  for  the 
protection  of  the  canal !  I  read  from  the  same  dispatch  : 

"You  may  suggest,  for  instance,  that  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain 
should  enter  into  a  treaty  guaranteeing  the  independence  of  Nicaragua,  Hon 
duras  and  Costa  Rica,  which  treaty  may  also  guarantee  to  British  subjects  the 
privileges  acquired  in  those  States  by  the  treaties  between  Great  Britain  and 
Spain,  provided  that  the  limits  of  those  States  on  the  east  be  acknowledged  to 
be  the  Carribean  Sea." 

Now,  sir,  let  me  ask  the  senator  from  Delaware  what  becomes  of 
his  pretext  that  he  deemed  the  guaranty  of  the  independence  of 
Nicaragua  an  insuperable  objection  to  the  Hise  treaty?  Have  I  not 
proven  by  his  own  dispatches,  written  at  the  time,  that  such  an  idea 
could  never  have  entered  his  brain  when  he  determined  to  withhold 
the  treaty  from  the  Senate  ? — that  it  was  an  afterthought  upon  which 
lie  has  since  seized  as  an  excuse  for  an  act  which  had  been  previously 
done  with  a  view  to  another  object,  and  for  different  reasons  ? 

I  will  now  proceed  to  consider  the  fourth  objection  made  by  the 
senator  to  the  Hise  treaty.  He  goes  on  to  criticise  its  various  pro 
visions,  denounces  them  as  ridiculous,  as  absurd,  as  unconstitutional, 
and  he  puts  the  question  with  an  air  of  triumph  whether  there  was 
a  man  in  this  body  who  would  have  voted  for  all  the  provisions  of 
that  treaty.  Sir,  I  have  no  fancy  for  that  species  of  special  pleading 
which  attempts  to  avoid  the  real  issue  by  a  criticism  upon  mere 
details  which  are  subject  to  modification  at  pleasure.  Does  not  the 
senator  know  that  when  a  treaty  is  made,  the  objects  of  which  are 
desirable,  while  the  details  are  inadmissible,  the  practice  has  been 
to  send  it  to  the  Senate,  that  the  object  may  be  secured  and  the 
details  so  modified  as  to  conform  to  the  ends  in  view  ?  Whoever 
supposed  before  that  a  treaty,  desirable  in  its  leading  features,  was  to 
be  rejected  by  the  department,  merely  because  there  was  an  obnox 
ious  provision  in  it  ?  I  could  turn  upon  the  senator  with  an  air  of 
as  much  triumph,  if  I  had  practised  it  as  well,  and  ask  him  if  there 
was  a  man  in  this  body  who  would  have  voted  for  the  Mexican 
treaty  of  peace  as  it  was  sent  to  us  by  the  Executive  ?  Do  we  not 
all  know  that  the  treaty  which  was  ratified  by  about  four-fifths  of 
the  Senate  came  to  us  in  a  shape  in  which  it  could  not  receive  one 
solitary  vote  upon  either  side  of  the  chamber?  Do  we  not  know 
that  Mr.  Polk  in  his  message  communicating  the  treaty  intimated 
that  fact,  and  called  the  attention  of  the  Senate  to  the  obnoxious 
provisions?  "While  it  contained  provisions  which  would  exclude  the 
President  from  the  possibility  of  ever  ratifying  it,  which  would  have 


STEP  HEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  41 

prevented  every  senator  from  giving  his  sanction  to  it,  yet  inasmuch 
as  the  main  objects  of  the  treaty  met  the  approval  of  the  President, 
and  it  was  only  matters  of  detail  that  were  obnoxious  and  inadmis 
sible,  he  sent  it  to  the  Senate  that  its  details  might  be  made  to  har 
monize  with  its  objects.  Sir,  the  vote  to  strike  out  the  obnoxious 
features  in  the  treaty  was  unanimous.  Not  one  man  in  the  body,  not 
even  the  senator  from  Delaware,  dared  to  affirm  those  clauses  or  vote 
to  keep  them  in  the  treaty.  Having  perfected  it  so  as  to  suit  the 
views  of  about  four-fifths  of  the  Senate,  it  was  ratified  with  the  vote 
0-  the  senator  recorded  in  the  affirmative,  according  to  my  recol 
lection. 

If,  therefore,  the  senator  from  Delaware  had  followed  the  practice 
which  he  sanctioned  by  his  own  vote  in  the  case  of  the  Mexican 
treaty,  he  would  have  sent  the  Hise  treaty  to  the  Senate  for  amend 
ment  and  ratification,  even  if  the  details  had  been  obnoxious  to  all 
the  objections  he  now  urges  to  them.  For  this  reason  I  do  not  deem 
it  necessary  to  occupy  the  time  of  the  Senate  in  reply  to  his  objec 
tions  relative  to  making  a  canal  outside  the  limits  of  the  "United 
States,  or  the  creation  of  a  company  either  by  Congress  or  the  Presi 
dent  for  that  purpose.  I  care  not  whether  these  provisions  were 
admissible  or  inadmissible.  It  is  not  material  to  the  argument.  It 
can  have  no  bearing  upon  the  question.  The  Hise  treaty  was  evi 
dence  of  one  great  fact,  which  should  never  be  forgotten,  and  that 
fact  is,  that  Nicaragua  was  willing  and  anxious  to  grant  the  United 
States  forever  the  exclusive  right  and  control  over  a  ship  canal 
between  the  two  oceans.  The  secretary  of  state  (Mr.  Clayton), 
knew  that  fact.  If  the  details  were  not  acceptable  to  him,  he  could 
have  availed  himself  of  the  main  provisions  and  made  the  details  to 
suit  himself;  I  confine  myself  therefore  to  the  great  point  that  you 
might  have  had  the  exclusive  privilege  if  you  had  desired  it.  You 
refused  it  with  your  eyes  open,  and  took  a  partnership  in  lieu  of  it. 
All  about  the  details  is  a  matter  of  moonshine.  You  could  have 
modified  them  to  suit  yourself  before  sending  the  treaty  to  the 
Senate,  or  you  could  have  followed  the  example  of  Mr.  Polk,  in  the 
case  of  the  Mexican  treaty,  and  sent  it  to  the  Senate  with  the  recom 
mendation  that  the  details  be  thus  modified. 

All  this  talk  about  obnoxious  features  and  objectionable  provisions 
— about  guarantees  of  independence  and  want  of  authority  to  make 
the  treaty — must  be  regarded  as  miserable  attempts  to  avoid  the 
main  point  at  issue.  Why  this  pitiful  equivocation,  if  the  senator 
was  really  in  favor  of  the  European  partnership  in  preference  to  the 
exclusive  privilege  for  the  United  States,  as  all  his  acts  prove — the 
whole  tenor  of  his  correspondence  clearly  and  conclusively  prove — 
was  the  case?  If  he  thinks  his  policy  was  right,  why  not  frankly 
avow  the  truth,  and  justify  upon  the  merits  ?  I  am  not  to  be  diverted 
from  my  purpose  by  his  assaults  upon  the  administration  of  Presi 
dent  Polk,  nor  by  his  array  of  great  names  in  opposition  to  the  viewj 
I  entertain.  History  will  do  justice  to  Mr.  Polk  and  Mr.  Buchanan 


42  THELIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

upon  this  as  well  as  all  other  questions  connected  with  their  admi 
nistration  of  the  government.  In  the  speech  to  which  the  senator 
professed  to  reply,  I  did  not  make  an  allusion  to  party  politics.  I  do 
not  think  the  term  Whig  or  Democrat  can  be  found  in  the  whole 
speech.  I  am  sure  that  it  does  not  contain  a  partisan  reference  to 
the  state  of  political  parties  in  the  country  during  the  period  to 
which  my  remarks  applied.  I  attempted  to  discuss  the  question 
upon  its  merits,  independent  of  the  fact  whether  my  views  might  come 
in  conflict  with  those  professed  hy  either  of  the  great  parties,  or 
entertained  by  the  great  men  of  our  country  at  some  former  period. 
I  should  have  been  better  satisfied  if  the  senator  had  pursued  the 
same  course,  instead  of  calling  upon  Jackson,  Polk  and  Buchanan, 
and  sheltering  himself  behind  their  great  names,  while  attempting  to 
detract  from  their  fame  by  representing  them  as  having  sacrificed  the 
interests  and  honor  of  their  country. 

MR.  CLAYTON. — I  deny  it.  There  was  not  one  word  in  my  speech 
which  went  to  arraign  Mr.  Polk  or  General  Jackson,  or  anybody. 
There  was  nothing  like  a  party  spirit  in  this  speech.  If  the  gentle 
man  so  understood  me,  he  entirely  misunderstood  me.  I  stated  the 
fact  that  Mr.  Polk  and  Mr.  Buchanan  had  been  applied  to  by  the 
local  government  of  Nicaragua  for  the  intervention  of  this  govern 
ment  to  protect  it  from  the  aggressions  of  the  British.  I  stated,  and 
proved  the  fact,  that  the  Monroe  doctrine  had  never  been  carried 
out — that  Mr.  Polk  on  that  occasion  had  declined  to  interfere ;  but 
I  disclaim  entirely  assailing  him,  and  endeavor  to  reconcile  his  whole 
course  of  conduct  as  being  consistent  with  what  he  stated  in  the 
House  of  Representatives  on  the  Panama  mission. 

ME.  DOUGLAS. — I  accept  the  explanation.  It  is  perfectly  satisfac 
tory,  but  I  am  very  unfortunate  in  apprehending  the  meaning  of 
language.  He  said  that  Mr.  Polk  had  avowed  himself  in  favor  of 
asserting  the  Monroe  doctrine.  He  then  said  that  Mr.  Polk  had 
abandoned  and  refused  to  carry  it  out  when  this  question  arose.  He 
said  the  President  of  Nicaragua,  to  use  his  own  language,  "  poked 
that  declaration  into  Mr.  Polk's  own  teeth." 

MB.  CLAYTON. — I  used  no  such  word. 

ME.  DOUGLAS. — At  least,  that  he  thrust  it  into  his  teeth. 

ME.  CLAYTON. — I  did  not. 

ME.  DOUGLAS. — Well,  never  mind  about  the  precise  word.  At  all 
events,  he  went  on  to  show  that  Mr.  Polk  was  pledged  to  the  Mon 
roe  doctrine,  that  he  failed  to  carry  it  out,  that  no  administration 
ever  carried  it  out,  that  it  had  been  abandoned  whenever  a  question 
arose  which  gave  an  opportunity  for  carrying  it  into  effect.  When 
he  chose  to  put  Mr.  Polk  into  the  position  of  making  declarations 
and  violating  them,  making  protests  and  abandoning  them,  making 
threats  and  never  executing  them,  I  very  naturally  supposed,  accord 
ing  to  the  notion  of  a  western  man,  that  he  was  attacking  him. 
(Laughter.) 

MB.  CLAYTON. — I  endeavor  to  show  that  Mr.  Polk  had  made  his 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  43 

recommendation  to  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  that  he  was 
perfectly  justifiable  in  not  considering  that  as  the  established  doc 
trine  of  the  country,  because  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  had 
never  adopted  it.  On  that  principle  I  endeavor  to  reconcile  the 
course  of  Mr.  Polk  with  itself.  The  gentleman  has  undertaken  to 
represent  me  as  assailing  Mr.  Polk,  when  if  he  had  paid  attention  to 
what  I  said — unfortunately  he  was  out  during  the  greater  portion  of 
the  time  I  was  discussing  the  subject — he  would  have  seen  that  I  was 
endeavoring  to  prove  that  the  course  of  that  President  of  the  United 
States,  in  this  particular,  was  made  liable  to  the  exception  which  is 
tuken  to  it ;  that  he  was  not  bound  by  the  declaration  of  the  Monroe 
doctrine  unless  Congress  adopted  it,  because  he  was  not  the  govern 
ment. 

MB.  DOTJGLAS. — Of  course  I  accept  the  explanation  of  the  senator 
with  a  great  deal  of  pleasure,  and  I  am  gratified  to  know  that  I 
misapprehend  him ;  but  it  really  did  appear  to  me  that  I  was 
justified  in  putting  that  construction  upon  what  he  said,  inasmuch 
as  he  went  on  to  show  that  when  he  came  into  the  State  Department, 
he  found  Great  Britain  with  her  protectorate  over  the  Mosquito 
coast,  and  spreading  over  more  than  half  of  Central  America — that 
during  Mr.  Polk's  administration,  and  while  he  was  negotiating  the 
treaty  of  peace  with  Mexico,  Great  Britain  seized  the  town  of  San 
Juan,  at  the  mouth  of  the  proposed  canal,  and  that  Mr.  Polk  and  Mr. 
Buchanan  remained  silent,  without  even  a  protest  against  this  unjus 
tifiable  aggression ;  and  when  he  denounced  that  seizure  as  an  act 
originating  in  hostility  to  this  country,  to  cut  off  communication 
with  our  Pacific  possessions ;  and  when  he  said  that  it  would  have 
been  wiser  to  have  closed  the  door  and  shut  out  the  British  lion,  than 
to  allow  him  to  enter  unresisted,  and  then  attempt  to  expel  him ; 
and  when  he  boasted  of  having  expelled  the  British  lion  after  Mr. 
Polk  and  Mr.  Buchanan  had  permitted  him  to  enter  the  house  in 
contempt  of  their  declaration  of  the  Monroe  doctrine,  I  really  thought 
that  he  was  attempting  to  censure  Mr.  Polk  for  letting  the  lion  come  in ; 
but  it  seems  I  was  mistaken.  He  did  not  mean  that,  and  not  meaning 
it,  upon  my  word  I  do  not  know  what  he  did  mean.  (Laughter.) 

When  I  heard  all  this,  and  much  more  of  the  same  tenor,  it  oc 
curred  to  me  that  it  amounted  to  a  pretty  good  arraignment  of  Mr. 
Polk  and  his  administration  ;  and  that  his  object  was  to  glorify  him 
self  and  General  Taylor,  at  the  expense  of  Mr.  Buchanan  and  Mr. 
Polk,  by  accusing  the  latter  of  having  tamely  submitted  to  British 
aggressions  of  great  enormity,  which  the  former  promptly  rebuked 
by  expelling  the  British  from  Central  America.  Let  me  ask  him  the 
question — did  the  Clayton  and  Bulwer  treaty  expel  the  British  from 
Central  America?  Has  England  abandoned  her  protectorate?  "What 
power  has  she  surrendered  ?  What  functionary  has  she  recalled  ? 
What  portion  of  the  country — what  inch  of  territory  has  she  given 
up?  Will  the  senator  from  Delaware  inform  me  what  England  has 
abandoned  in  pursuance  or  by  virtue  of  the  Clayton  and  Bulwor 


44:  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

treaty  ?  I  can  show  him  where  she  has  extended  her  possessions 
since  the  date  of  that  treaty,  and  in  cor  tempt  of  its  stipulations.  I 
can  point  him  to  the  seizure  of  the  Bay  Islands  and  the  erection  of 
them  into  a  colony — to  the  extension  of  her  jurisdiction  in  the 
vicinity  of  the  Balize— to  her  invasion  of  the  Territory  of  Honduras 
on  the  main  land — and  to  the  continuance  of  her  protectorate  over 
the  Mosquito  coast.  I  can  point  him  to  a  series  of  acts  designed  by 
Great  Britain  to  increase  her  power  and  extend  her  possessions  in 
that  quarter.  "Will  he  point  me  to  any  one  act  hy  which  she  has  re 
duced  her  power  or  curtailed  her  possessions  ?  He  boasts  of  having 
expelled  the  British  from  Central  America.  "Will  he  have  the  kind 
ness  to  inform  the  Senate  how,  when,  and  where  this  has  been 
effected  ?  Where  is  the  evidence  to  sustain  this  declaration  ?  I  called 
for  information  on  this  point  in  my  speech  the  other  day.  The 
senator  replied  to  all  other  parts  of  that  speech  in  detail  and  at  great 
length.  Of  course,  want  of  time  was  the  reason  for  his  omission  to 
respond  to  these  pertinent  inquiries.  (Laughter.) 

ME.  CLAYTON. — ISTo,  sir ;  I  replied  to  it,  but  the  senator  was  ou 
ot  his  seat. 

MR.  DOUGLAS. — I  was  in  my  seat  the  most  of  the  time  the  senator 
was  speaking  on  that  part  of  the  subject,  but  unfortunately  I  heard 
no  response  to  this  interrogatory.  Now,  sir,  in  regard  to  this  Bay 
Island  colony,  I  may  be  permitted  to  say,  although  it  is  by  the  way 
of  digression  from  the  line  of  argument  which  I  was  marking  out  for 
myself,  that  it  presents  a  clear  case  not  only  in  derogation  of  the 
Monroe  doctrine,  but  in  direct  violation  and  contempt  of  the  Clayton 
and  Bulwer  treaty.  I  will  do  the  senator  the  justice  to  say,  that  the 
Bay  Island  colony  has  not  been  erected  in  pursuance  of  the  treaty, 
but  in  derogation  of  its  provisions.  The  question  arises,  are  we 
going  to  submit  tamely  to  the  establishment  of  this  new  colony  ?  If 
we  acquiesce  in  it  we  submit  to  a  double  wrong — a  contravention  of 
our  avowed  policy  in  regard  to  European  colonization  on  this  conti 
nent  ;  and  a  palpable  and  open  violation  of  the  terms  and  stipulations 
of  the  Clayton  and  Bulwer  treaty.  If  we  tamely  submit  to  this  two 
fold  wrong,  the  less  we  say  henceforth  in  regard  to  European  colo 
nization  on  the  American  continent,  the  better  for  our  own  credit. 

Here  is  a  case  where  we  must  act  promptly  if  we  ever  intend  to 
act.  I  do  not  wish  to  make  an  issue  with  England  about  the  Balize 
— she  has  been  in  possession  there  longer  than  our  nation  has  existed 
as  an  independent  republic.  I  do  not  wish  to  make  an  issue  with 
her  in  regard  to  Jamaica,  because  she  cannot  surrender  it  upon  our 
demand  without  dishonor,  and  she  is  bound  to  fight  if  driven  to  an 
extremity  on  that  point.  I  do  not  want  to  make  an  issue  with 
her  in  reference  to  any  colony  she  has  upon  the  continent  or  adjacent 
to  it,  where  she  may  be  said  to  have  had  a  long  and  peaceful 
possession.  Sir,  if  I  was  going  to  make  the  issue  on  any  one  of 
these  points,  I  would  pursue  a  more  manly  course  by  declaring  war 
at  once  instead  of  resorting  to  such  an  expedient.  I  would  make  the 


STEPHEN     A.DOUGLAS.  45 

issue  solely  and  distinctly  on  the  Bay  Island  colony,  for  the  reason 
that  there  she  is  clearly  in  the  wrong,  the  act  having  been  done  in 
violation  of  her  plighted  faith.  It  was  done  in  contempt  of  our 
avowed  policy.  She  cannot  justify  it  before  the  civilized  world,  and 
therefore,  dare  not  fight  upon  such  an  issue.  England  will  fight  us 
when  her  honor  compels  her  to  do  it,  and  she  Avill  fight  us  for  no 
other  cause.  We  can  require  Great  Britain  to  discontinue  the  Bay 
Island  colony,  and  I  call  upon  the  friends  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer 
treaty,  whose  provisions  are  outraged  by  that  act,  to  join  in  the  de 
mand  that  that  colony  be  discontinued.  Upon  that  point  we  are  in 
the  right :  England  is  in  the  wrong ;  and  she  cannot,  she  dare  not 
fight  upon  it.  And,  sir,  when  England  backs  out  of  one  colony  upon 
our  remonstrance,  it  will  be  a  long  time  before  she  will  establish 
another  upon  this  continent  without  consulting  us.  And,  sir,  when 
England  shall  have  refrained  from  interfering  in  the  affairs  of  the 
American  continent  without  consulting  the  wishes  of  this  govern 
ment,  what  other  power  on  earth  will  be  willing  to  stand  forward 
and  do  that  which  England  concedes  it  prudent  not  to  attempt  ?  I  may 
be  permitted  to  say,  therefore,  that  the  only  issue  that  I  desire  to  see 
at  this  time,  upon  our  foreign  relations,  as  they  are  now  presented  to 
me,  is  upon  the  Bay  Island  colony  :  and  let  us  require  that  that  be 
discontinued,  and  that  the  terms  of  our  treaty  stipulations  be  obeyed 
and  fulfilled.  Whan  that  issue  shall  have  been  made  and  decided  in 
our  favor,  we  will  not  have  much  need  for  general  resolutions  about 
the  Monroe  doctrine  in  future. 

But,  sir,  this  was"  a  digression.  The  point  that  I  was  discussing 
was  this :  that  while  it  has  been  a  matter  of  boast  for  years  that  the 
Clayton  and  Bulwer  t"  .aty  drove  Great  Britain  out  of  Central 
America,  she  has  not  surrendered  an  inch  ;  and  what  is  more,  she  is 
now  proposing  negotiations  with  us  with  a  view  to  new  arrange 
ments,  by  which  she  shall  hereafter  give  up  her  protectorate..  Yes,  sir, 
your  late  secretary  of  state  and  President,  Everett  and  Fillmore,  have 
communicated  to  Congress  the  fact  that  the  British  minister  was  pro 
posing  new  negotiations,  new  arrangements,  by  which  Great  Britain 
shall  hereafter  give  up  that  which  the  senator  makes  it  a  matter  of 
boast  that  he  had  secured  by  his  treaty.  That  is  a  little  curious.  I 
do  not  understand  this  self-gratulation  of  having  accomplished  a  great 
and  wonderful  object,  by  the  expelling  of  the  British  lion  from  the 
place  where  Mr.  Polk  allowed  him  to  come  and  abide,  and  still  a  new 
negotiation  or  a  new  arrangement  is  deemed  necessary  to  secure  that 
which  the  senator  from  Delaware  boasts  of  having  accomplished  long 
since ! 

England  professes  to  be  desirous  of  surrendering  her  protectorate. 
Then,  why  does  she  not  do  it?  The  British  minister  proposes  ^to 
open  negotiations  by  which  England  shall  withdraw  her  authority 
from  Central  America,  and  the  late  secretary  of  state  (Mr.  Everett) 
entertains  the  proposition  favorably,  while  the  senator  from  Delaware 
congratulates  the  country  upon  his  having  effected  the  desired  end. 
in  his  treaty  three  years  ago. 


46  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

If  Messrs.  Everett  and  Fillmore  were  correct  in  entertaining  Mr. 
Crampton's  proposition  for  a  new  arrangement,  certainly  the  senator 
from  Delaware  is  at  fault  in  saying  that  his  treaty  expelled  the  Brit 
ish  from  Central  America.  My  opinion  as  to  whether  it  did  expel 
them  or  not,  is  a  matter  of  not  much  consequence.  I  have  always 
thought  the  language  of  the  treaty  was  so  equivocal,  that  no  man 
could  say  with  certainty,  whether  it  did  aholish  the  protectorate  or 
not.  One  clause  seemed  to  abolish  it ;  another  seemed  to  recognizo 
its  existence,  and  to  restrain  its  exercise ;  and  you  could  make  as 
good  an  argument  on  one  side  as  the  other.  But  I  gave  notice  at 
the  time  the  treaty  w^as  ratified,  that  I  would  take  the  American  side, 
and  stand  by  the  senator  from  Delaware  in  claiming  that  England 
was  bound  to  quit ;  but  our  late  secretary  of  state  and  the  President, 
Everett  and  Fillmore,  think  otherwise ;  and  now  it  becomes  a 
question  whether  new  negotiations  to  accomplish  that  very  desirable 
object  are  necessary  or  not  ? 

Mr.  President,  I  return  to  the  point  which  I  was  discussing  when 
the  senator  interrupted  me,  and  led  me  off  in  this  digression,  to  wit . 
That  the  simple  question  presented  in  this  matter,  when  stripped  of 
all  extraneous  circumstances,  was  this :  Should  we  have  accepted, 
Avhen  tendered,  an  exclusive  right  of  way  forever,  from  one  ocean  to 
the  other  ?  The  senator  from  Delaware  thought  not,  and  the  admin 
istration  of  General  Taylor  sustained  him  in  his  view  of  the  question. 
I  thought  we  ought  to  have  embraced  the  offer  w^hich  tendered  us 
the  exclusive  control  forever  over  this  great  interoceanic  canal. 

The  senator  attempts  to  sustain  his  position  by  quoting  the 
authority  of  General  Jackson  and  Mr.  Polk.  Sir,  he  is  unfortunate 
in  his  quotation.  I  do  not  think  that,  fairly  considered,  he  has  any 
such  authority.  I  am  aware  that  in  1835  that  senator  offered  a 
resolution  in  this  body,  which  was  adopted,  recommending  a  nego 
tiation  to  open  the  Isthmus  to  all  nations,  and  that  General  Jackson 
sent  out  Colonel  Biddle  to  collect  and  report  information  on  the 
subject ;  but  when  the  resolution  was  adopted,  the  question  was  then 
presented  under  circumstances  very  different  from  those  which 
existed  when  the  senator  suppressed  the  Hise  treaty.  At  that  time 
the  Central  American  States  had  granted  to  the  ^Netherlands  the 
privilege  of  making  a  canal.  Others  had  already  secured  the  privi 
lege,  and  in  that  point  of  view  it  was  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the 
most  we  could  do  was  to  get  an  equal  privilege  with  European 
nations.  That  was  not  the  case  presented  when  the  exclusive  privi 
lege  was  offered  to  us  and  the  offer  declined  by  the  senator  from 
Delaware  without  consulting  the  Senate. 

But  there  is  no  evidence  that  General  Jackson  ever  entertained 
the  opinions  attributed  to  him.  Colonel  Biddle,  who  was  appointed 
by  General  Jackson  to  explore  the  routes  and  collect  and  report 
information,  availed  himself  of  his  official  position  to  obtain  an 
exclusive  privilege  to  himself  and  his  associates  on  private  account. 
When  the  existence  of  this  private  contract  came  to  the  knowledge 
of  the  secretary  of  state,  Mr.  Forsyth,  he  reprimanded  our  charge  at 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  47 

New  Granada,  for  having  given  any  countenance  to  it.  And  why? 
Not  because  it  contained  an  exclusive  privilege  to  the  United  States, 
for  it  did  not  give  us  any  privilege.  Mr.  Biddle  had  been  sent  out 
there  to  get  information  to  be  laid  before  the  administration.  He 
had  no  power  to  negotiate — no  authority  to  open  diplomatic  rela 
tions.  He  had  no  power  to  take  any  one  step  in  procuring  the  privi 
lege.  He  made  use  of  his  official  position,  and,  in  the  opinion  of  the 
administration,  abused  it,  by  securing  a  private  grant  to  himself, 
without  the  authority,  protection,  or  sanction  of  the  government  of 
his  own  country. 

Mr.  Forsyth  was  indignant  because  his  agent  had  disobeyed  his 
authority,  and  turned  the  public  employment  into  a  private  specula 
tion.  That  is  not  the  question  presented  here.  That  contract  did 
not  give  the  United  States  the  privilege  at  all.  It  gave  it  to 
Colonel  Biddle  and  his  associates.  But  I  find  nothing  in  that  trans 
action,  and  in  all  the  public  documents  relating  to  it,  to  show  that 
General  Jackson  would  have  refused  the  exclusive  privilege  to  his 
own  country  if  it  had  been  tendered  to  him. 

How  is  it,  then,  with  Mr.  Polk  ?  According  to  my  recollection 
of  the  facts,  New  Granada  had  granted  the  privilege  of  making  a 
canal  to  a  Frenchman  by  the  name  of  Du  Quesne — I  will  not  be  cer 
tain  of  his  name — and  it  was  desirable  to  get  permission  to  carry  the 
mails  across  there.  The  grant  had  passed  into  the  possession  of  a 
citizen  of  a  foreign  power,  and  the  most  that  our  government  could 
ask,  was  to  be  put  upon  an  equal  footing  with  that  other  power.  It 
did  not  present  the  question  of  the  privilege  being  tendered  to  us, 
and  we  refusing  to  accept  it. 

But  I  shall  take  no  time  in  going  into  a  vindication  of  those  ad 
ministrations.  In  the  remarks  that  I  made  the  other  day,  I  chose  to 
vindicate  my  own  course  without  reference  to  past  administrations 
or  present  party  associations,  and  I  will  pursue  the  same  line  of  de 
bate  now.  One  word  upon  the  point,  made  by  the  senator,  that  the 
Hise  treaty  was  unconstitutional.  Was  it  not  constitutional  to 
accept  the  exclusive  privilege  to  the  United  States  ?  If  it  was  not, 
and  hi's  constitutional  objection  is  valid,  it  goes  a  little  too  far.  If 
you  had  no  right  to  accept  an  exclusive  privilege  to  us  under  the 
Constitution,  what  right  had  you  to  take  a  partnership  privilege  in 
company  with  Great  Britain  ?  If  you  had  no  right  to  take  the 
privilege  for  the  benefit  of  American  citizens  alone,  what  right  had 
you  to  take  one  for  the  benefit  of  Englishmen  and  Americans  jointly  ? 
If  you  have  no  right  to  make  a  treaty  by  which  you  will  protect  an 
American  company  in  making  that  canal,  what  right  had  you  to 
make  a  treaty  by  which  you  pledged  yourselves  to  protect  a  British 
company  in  making  the  same  work  ?  I  choose  to  put  the  senator 
upon  the  defensive,  and  let  him  demonstrate  his  right  to  do  this 
thing  jointly  with  England,  and  then  I  will  draw  from  his  argument 
my  right  to  do  it  for  the  benefit  of  America  alone.  I  choose  to  put 
him  in  the  position  of  demonstrating  the  existence  of  the  constitu 


4:8  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

tional  power.  He,  in  his  treaty,  exercised  the  power.  I  have  not. 
And  he,  having  exercised  it,  having  pledged  the  faith  of  the  nation 
to  do  the  act,  I  have  a  right  to  call  upon  him  to  show  the  authority, 
under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  to  make  a  guaranty 
jointly  with  England  for  the  benefit  of  English  subjects  as  well  as 
American  citizens  ;  and  when  he  proves  the  existence  of  that  power, 
he  has  proved  the  right  of  the  government  to  do  the  same  thing  for 
the  benefit  of  America  and  American  citizens,  omitting  England  and 
British  subjects. 

Sir,  as  I  before  said,  I  have  no  fondness  for  this  special  pleading 
about  the  peculiar  provisions  of  a  treaty,  when  the  real  point  was 
the  extent  of  the  privilege  which  we  should  accept.  Now,  sir,  I 
was  in  favor  of  an  exclusive  privilege,  and  I  will  tell  you  why.  I 
desired  to  see  a  canal  made ;  and  when  made,  I  desired  to  see  it 
under  the  control  of  a  power  enabled  to  protect  it.  I  desired  to  see  it 
open  to  the  commerce  of  the  whole  world,  under  our  protection  upon 
proper  terms.  How  was  that  to  be  done,  except  by  an  exclusive 
privilege  to  ourselves  ?  Then,  let  us  open  it  to  the  commerce  of 
the  world  on  such  terms  and  conditions  as  we  should  deem  wise,  just 
and  politic.  Could  we  not  do  this  as  well  by  our  volition  as  England 
could  in  conjunction  with  us  ?  Would  it  not  be  as  creditable  to  us 
as  a  nation  to  have  acquired  it  ourselves,  and  then  opened  it  freely, 
as  to  have  gone  into  a  partnership  by  which  we  should  have  no  con 
trol  in  prescribing  the  terms  upon  which  it  should  be  opened  ?  And 
besides,  if  the  grant  had  been  made  to  us,  and  we  had  accepted  it, 
and  then  thrown  it  open  to  the  commerce  of  all  nations  on  our  own 
terms  and  conditions,  we  held  in  our  hands  a  right  which  would  have 
been  ample  security  for  every  nation  under  heaven  to  keep  the  peace 
with  the  United  States.  The  moment  England  abused  the  privilege 
by  seizing  any  more  islands,  by  establishing  any  more  colonies,  by 
invading  any  more  rights,  or  by  violating  any  more  treaties,  we 
would  use  our  privileges,  shut  up  the  canal,  and  exclude  her  com 
merce  from  the  Pacific.  We  would  hold  a  power  in  our  hands 
which  might  be  exercised  at  any  moment  to  preserve  peace  and  pre 
vent  injustice.  Peace  and  progress  being  our  aim,  we  should  still 
have  continued  to  be  the  only  government  on  earth  whose  public 
policy  from  the  beginning  has  been  justly  and  honestly  to  enforce  the 
laws  of  nations  Avith  fidelity  toward  all  the  nations.  Sir,  when  you 
surrendered  that  exclusive  right,  you  surrendered  a  great  element  of 
power,  which  in  our  hands  would  have  been  wielded  in  the  cause  of 
justice  for  the  benefit  of  mankind. 

I  was  not  for  such  a  restrictive  policy  as  would  exclude  British 
vessels  from  going  through  the  canal,  or  the  vessels  of  any  other 
nation  which  should  respect  our  rights.  I  would  let  them  all  pass, 
as  long  as  they  did  not  abuse  the  privilege ;  close  it  against  them 
when  they  did.  I  insist  that  the  American  people  occupy  a  position 
on  this  continent  which  rendered  it  natural  and  proper  that  we  should 
exercise  that  power.  I  have  no  fear  of  a  war  with  England.  1 


STEPHEN     A.DOUGLAS.  49 

have  none  now.  War  should  be  avoided  as  long  as  possible.  But 
sir,  you  need  have  no  apprehension  of  a  war  with  her,  for  the  reason 
that  if  we  keep  in  the  right,  she  dare  not  fight  us,  and  she  will  not 
especially  for- anything  relating  to  American  affairs.  She  knows  she 
has  given  a  bond  to  keep  the  peace,  with  a  mortgage  on  all  her  real 
estate  in  America  as  collateral  security,  and  she  knows  she  forfeits 
her  title  to  the  whole,  without  hope  of  redemption,  if  she  commits  a 
breach  of  the  bond.  She  will  not  fight  unless  compelled.  "We  could 
have  fortified  that  canal  at  each  end,  and  in  time  of  war  could  have 
closed  it  against  our  enemies,  and  opened  it  at  our  own  pleasure.  We 
had  the  power  of  doing  it ;  for  the  Rise  treaty  contained  provisions  for 
the  construction  of  fortifications  at  each  terminus  and  at  such  points 
along  the  line  of  the  canal  as  we  thought  proper.  We  had  the 
privilege  of  fortifying  it,  and  we  had  the  right  to  close  it  against  any 
power  which  should  abuse  the  privilege  which  we  conferred. 
^  Then,  sir,  what  was  the  objection  to  the  acceptance  of  that  exclu 
sive  privilege  ?  I  do  not  see  it,  sir.  I  know  what  were  the  private 
arguments  urged  in  times  which  have  gone  by,  and  which  I  trust 
never  will  return  ;  that  England  and  other  European  powers  never 
would  consent  that  the  United  States  should  have  an  exclusive  con 
trol  over  the  canal.  Well,  sir,  I  do  not  knoAv  that  they  would  have 
consented,  but  of  one  thing  I  am  certain,  I  would  never  have  asked 
their  consent.  When  Nicaragua  desired  to  confer  the  privilege,  and 
when  we  were  willing  to  accept  it,  it  was  purely  an  American  ques 
tion  with  which  England  had  no  right  to  interfere.  It  was  an  Ame 
rican  question  about  which  Europe  had  no  right  to  be  consulted. 
Are  we  under  any  more  obligation  to  consult  European  powers 
about  an  American  question  than  the  allied  powers  were,  in  their 
Congress,  to  consult  us,  when  establishing  the  equilibrium  of  Europe 
by  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Alliance  ?  America  was  not  consulted 
then.  Our  name  does  not  appear  in  all  the  proceedings.  It  was  a 
European  question,  about  which  it  was  presumed  America  had 
nothing  to  say.  This  question  of  a  canal  in  Nicaragua,  when  nego 
tiations  were  pending  to  give  it  to  us,  was  so  much  an  American 
question,  that  the  English  government  was  not  entitled  to  be  con 
sulted.  England  not  consent!  She  will  acquiesce  in  your  doing 
what  you  may  deem  right  so  long  as  you  consent  to  allow  her  to  hold 
Canada,  the  Bermudas,  Jamaica,  and  her  other  American  possessions. 
I  hope  the  time  has  arrived  when  we  will  not  be  told  any  more  that 
Europe  will  not  consent  to  this,  and  England  will  not  consent  to  that. 
I  heard  that  argument  till  I  got  tired  of  it  when  we  were  discussing 
the  resolutions  for  the  annexation  of  Texas.  I  heard  it  again  on  the 
Oregon  question,  and  I  heard  it  on  the  California  question.  It  has 
been  said  on  every  occasion  whenever  we  had  an  issue  about  acquir 
ing  territory,  that  England  would  not  consent ;  yet  she  has  acquiesced 
in  whatever  we  had  the  courage  and  the  justice  to  do.  And  why  ? 
Because  we  kept  ourselves  in  the  right.  England  was  so  situated 
with  her  possessions  on  this  continent,  that  she  dare  not  fight  in  an 


50  THE     LIFE     AND      SPEECHES     OF 

unjust  cause.  We  would  Lave  been  in  the  right  to  Lave  accepted  tLo 
privilege  of  making  this  canal,  and  England  would  never  have  dared 
to  provoke  a  controversy  with  us.  I  think  the  time  has  come  when 
America  should  perform  her  duty  according  to  our  own  judgment, 
and  our  own  sense  of  justice,  without  regard  to  what  European 
powers  might  say  with  respect  to  it.  I  think  this  nation  is  about 
of  age.  I  think  we  have  a  right  to  judge  for  ourselves.  Let  us 
always  do  right,  and  put  the  consequences  behind  us. 

But,  sir,  I  do  not  wish  to  detain  the  Senate  upon  this  point,  or  to 
prolong  the  discussion.  I  have  a  word  or  two  to  say  in  reply  to  the 
remarks  of  the  senator  from  Delaware  upon  so  much  of  my  speech 
as  related  to  the  pledge  in  the  Clayton  and  Bulwer  treaty,  never  to 
annex  any  portion  of  that  country.  I  objected  to  that  clause  in  the 
treaty,  upon  the  ground  that  I  was  unwilling  to  enter  into  a  treaty 
stipulation  with  any  European  power  in  respect  to  this  continent, 
that  we  would  not  do  in  the  future,  whatever  our  duty,  interest,  honor, 
and  safety,  might  require  in  the  course  of  events.  The  senator  infers 
that  I  desire  to  annex  Central  America  because  I  was  unwilling  to 
give  a  pledge  that  we  never  would  do  it.  He  reminded  me  that 
there  was  a  clause  in  the  treaty  with  Mexico  containing  the  stipula 
tion,  that  in  certain  contingencies  we  would  never  annex  any  portion 
of  that  country.  Sir,  it  was  unnecessary  that  he  should  remind  me 
of  that  provision.  He  has  not  forgotten  how  hard  I  struggled  to  get 
that  clause  out  of  the  treaty  where  it  was  retained  in  opposition  to 
my  vote.  Had  the  senator  given  me  his  aid  then  to  defeat  that  pro 
vision  in  the  Mexican  treaty,  I  would  be  better  satisfied  now  with 
his  excuse  for  having  inserted  a  still  stronger  pledge  in  his  treaty. 
But  having  advocated  that  pledge  then,  he  should  not  attempt  to 
avoid  the  responsibility  of  his  own  act  by  citing  it  as  a  precedent.  I 
was  unwilling  to  bind  ourselves  by  treaty  for  all  time  to  come  never 
to  annex  any  more  territory.  I  am  content  for  the  present  with  the 
territory  we  have.  I  do  not  wish  to  annex  any  portion  of  Mexico 
now.  I  did  not  wish  to  annex  any  part  of  Central  America  then, 
nor  do  I  at  this  time. 

But  I  cannot  close  my  eyes  to  the  history  of  this  country  for  the 
last  half  century.  Fifty  years  ago  the  question  was  being  debated 
in  this  Senate  whether  it  was  wise  or  not  to  acquire  any  territory  on 
the  west  bank  of  the  Mississippi,  and  it  was  then  contended  that  we 
could  never  with  safety  extend  beyond  that  river.  It  was  at  that 
time  seriously  considered  whether  the  Alleghany  Mountains  should 
not  be  the  barrier  beyond  which  we  should  never  pass.  At  a  sub 
sequent  date,  after  we  had  acquired  Louisiana  and  Florida,  more 
liberal  views  began  to  prevail,  and  it  was  thought  that  perhaps  we 
might  venture  to  establish  one  tier  of  States  west  of  the  Mississippi ; 
but  in  order  to  prevent  the  sad  calamity  of  an  undue  expansion  of 
our  territory,  the  policy  was  adopted  of  establishing  an  Indian  Ter 
ritory,  with  titles  in  perpetuity,  all  along  the  western  borders  of 
those  States,  so  that  no  more  new  States  could  possibly  be  created 


STEP  HEN     A.    DOUGLAS.  51 

in  that  direction.  That  barrier  could  not  arrest  the  onward  progress 
of  our  people.  They  burst  through  it,  and  passed  the  Rocky  Moun 
tain:?,  and  were  only  arrested  by  the  waters  of  the  Pacific.  Who 
then  is  prepared  to  say  that  in  the  progress  of  events,  having  met 
with  the  barrier  of  the  ocean  in  our  western  course,  we  may  not  be 
compelled  to  turn  to  the  north  and  to  the  south  for  an  outlet.  How 
long  is  it  since  the  gentleman  from  Delaware  himself  thought  that 
the  time  would  never  arrive  when  we  would  want  California?  I  am 
aware  that  he  was  of  that  opinion  at  the  time  we  ratified  the  treaty, 
and  annexed  it. 

MR.  CLAYTOX. — How? 

MR.  DOUGLAS.— By  his  voting  for  Mr.  Crittendeirs  resolutions  de 
claring  that  we  did  not  want  any  portion  of  Mexican  territory.  He 
will  find  his  vote  ia  this  volume  which  I  hold  in  my  hand.  I  am 
aware  that  he  belonged  to  that  school  of  politicians  who  thought  we 
had  territory  enough.  I  have  not  forgotten  that  a  respectable  por 
tion  of  this  body,  but  a  few  years  ago,  thought  it  would  be  prepos 
terous  to  bring  a  country  so  far  distant  as  California,  and  so  little 
known,  into  the  Union.  But  it  has  been  done;  and  now  since  Cali 
fornia  has  become  a  member  of  the  confederacy,  with  her  immense 
commerce  and  inexhaustible  resources,  we  are  told  that  the  time  will 
never  come  when  the  territory  lying  half  way  between  our  Atlantic 
and  Pacific  possessions  will  be  desirable.  Central  America  is  too  far 
off,  because  it  is  half  way  to  California,  and  on  the  main,  direct 
route — on  the  very  route  upon  which  you  pay  your  senators  and 
representatives  in  Congress  their  mileage  in  coming  to  the  capitol  of 
the  nation!  The  usual  route  of  travel,  the  public  highway,  the  half 
way  house  from  one  portion  of  the  country  to  the  other,  is  so  far  dis 
tant  that  the  man  who  thinks  the  time  will  ever  come  when  we  will 
want  it,  is  deemed  a  madman ! 

MR.  CLAYTON. — Does  the  senator  apply  those  sentiments  to  me  2 
I  do  not  think  so. 

MR.  DOUGLAS. — -I  simply  say  that  such  an  opinion  was  indicated  by 
the  vote  of  the  gentleman  on  the  resolution  of  Mr.  Orittenden. 

MR.  CLAYTON. — The  senator  is  entirely  mistaken  on  that  point. 

MR.  DOUGLAS — In  order  to  save  time,  I  waive  the  point  as  to  the 
senator's  vote,  although  it  is  recorded  in  the  volume  before  me,  and 
he  can  read  it  at  his  leisure.  But  I  am  not  mistaken  in  saying  that 
the  senator  on  yesterday  did  ridicule  the  idea  that  we  were  ever  to 
want  any  portion  of  Central  America.  He  was  utterly  amazed,  and 
in  his  amazement  inquired  where  were  these  boundaries  ever  to  cease. 
He  wanted  to  know  how  far  we  were  going,  and  if  we  expected  to 
spread  over  the  entire  continent.  I  do  not  think  we  will  do  it  in  our 
day,  but  I  am  not  prepared  to  prescribe  limits  to  the  area  over  which 
Democratic  principles  may  safely  spread.  I  know  not  what  our 
destiny  may  be.  1  try  to  keep  up  with  the  spirit  of  the  age,  to  keep 
in  view  the  history  of  the  country,  see  what  we  have  done,  whither 
•we  are  going,  and  with  what  velocity  we  are  moving,  in  order  to  bo 


52  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

prepared  for  those  events  which  it  is  not  in  the  power  of  man  to 
thwart. 

You  may  make  as  many  treaties  as  you  please  to  fetter  the  limits  of 
this  giant  republic,  and  she  will  hurst  them  all  from  her,  and  her 
course  will  be  onward  to  a  limit  which  I  will  not  venture  to  describe. 
"Why  the  necessity  of  pledging  your  faith  that  you  will  never  annex 
any  more  of  Mexico?  Do  you  not  know  that  you  will  be  compelled 
to  do  it;  that  you  cannot  help  it;  that  your  treaty  will  not  prevent 
it,  and  that  the  only  effect  it  will  have  will  be  to  enable  European 
powers  to  accuse  us  of  bad  faith  when  the  act  is  done,  and  associate 
American  faith  and  Punic  faith  as  synonymous,  terms  ?  What  is  the 
use  of  your  guaranty  that  you  will  never  erect  any  fortifications  in 
Central  America ;  never  annex,  occupy,  or  colonize  any  portion  of 
that  country  ?  How  do  you  know  that  you  can  avoid  doing  it?  If 
you  make  the  canal,  I  ask  you  if  American  citizens  will  not  settle 
along  its  line ;  whether  they  will  not  build  up  towns  at  each  termi 
nus;  whether  they  will  not  spread  over  that  country,  and  convert  it 
into  an  American  State ;  whether  American  principles  and  American 
institutions  will  not  be  firmly  planted  there  ?  And  I  ask  you  how 
•  many  years  you  think  will  pass  away  before  you  will  find  the  same 
necessity  to  extend  your  laws  over  your  own  kindred  that  you  found 
in  the  case  of  Texas?  How  long  will  it  be  before  that  day  arrives? 
It  may  not  occur  in  the  senator's  day  nor  mine.  But  so  certain  as 
this  republic  exists,  so  certain  as  we  remain  a  united  people,  so  cer 
tain  as  the  laws  of  progress  which  have  raised  us  from  a  mere  hand 
ful  to  a  mighty  nation,  shall  continue  to  govern  our  action,  just  so 
certain  are  these  events  to  be  worked  out,  and  you  will  be  compelled 
to  extend  your  protection  in  that  direction. 

Sir,  I  am  not  desirous  of  hastening  the  day.  I  am  not  impatient 
of  the  time  when  it  shall  be  realized.  I  do  not  wish  to  give  any 
additional  impulse  to  our  progress.  We  arc  going  fast  enough.  But 
I  wish  our  public  policy,  our  laws,  our  institutions,  should  keep  up 
with  the  advance  in  science,  in  the  mechanic  arts,  in  agriculture,  and 
in  everything  that  tends  to  make  us  a  great  and  powerful  nation. 
Let  us  look  the  future  in  the  face,  and  let  us  prepare  to  meet  that 
which  cannot  be  avoided.  Hence  I  was  unwilling  to  adopt  that 
clause  in  the  treaty  guaranteeing  that  neither  party  would  ever  annex, 
colonize,  or  occupy  any  portion  of  Central  America.  I  was  opposed 
to  it  for  another  reason.  It  was  not  reciprocal.  Great  Britain  had 
possession  of  the  island  of  Jamaica.  Jamaica  was  the  nearest  armed 
and  fortified  point  to  the  terminus  of  the  canal.  Jamaica  at  present 
commands  the  entrance  of  the  canal;  and  all  that  Great  Britain 
desired  was,  inasmuch  as  she  had  possession  of  the  only  place  com 
manding  the  canal,  to  procure  a  stipulation  that  no  other  power 
would  ever  erect  a  fortification  nearer  its  terminus.  That  stipulation 
is  equivalent  to  an  agreement  that  England  may  fortify,  but  that  we 
never  shall.  Sir,  when  you  look  at  the  wThole  history  of  that  ques 
tion  you  will  see  that  England,  with  her  far-seeing,  sagacious  policy, 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  53 

has  attempted  to  circumscribe  and  restrict  and  restrain  the  free  action 
of  this  government.  When  was  it  that  Great  Britain  seized  the  pos 
session  of  the  terminus  of  this  canal?  Just  six  days  after  the  signing 
of  the  treaty  which  secured  to  us  California!  The  moment  England 
saw,  that  by  the  pending  negotiations  with  Mexico,  California  was  to 
be  acquired,  she  collected  her  fleets  and  made  preparations  for  the 
seizure  of  the  port  of  San  Juan,  in  order  that  she  might  be  gate 
keeper  on  the  public  highway  to  our  new  possessions  on  the  Pacific. 
Within  six  days  from  the  time  we  signed  the  treaty,  England  seized 
by  force  and  violence  the  very  point  now  in  controversy.  Is  not  this 
fact  indicative  of  her  motives  ?  Is  it  not  clear  that  her  object  was  to 
obstruct  our  passage  to  our  new  possessions  ?  Hence  I  do  not  sympa 
thize  with  that  feeling  which  the  senator  expressed  yesterday,  that 
it  was  a  pity  to  have  a  difference  with  a  nation  so  friendly  to  us  as 
England.  Sir,  I  do  not  see  the  evidence  of  her  friendship.  It  is  not  in 
the  nature  of  things  that  she  can  be  our  friend.  It  is  impossible  she 
can  love  us.  I  do  not  blame  her  for  not  loving  us.  Sir,  we  have 
wounded  her  vanity  and  humbled  her  pride.  She  can  never  forgive 
us.  But  for  us,  she  would  be  the  first  power  on  the  face  of  the 
earth.  But  for  us,  she  would  have  the  prospect  of  maintaining  that 
proud  position  which  she  held  for  so  long  a  period.  We  are  in  her  way. 
She  is  jealous  of  us,  and  jealousy  forbids  the  idea  of  friendship.  Eng 
land  does  not  love  us ;  she  cannot  love  us,  and  we  do  not  love  her  either. 
We  have  some  tilings  in  the  past  to  remember  that  are  not  agreeable. 
She  has  more  in  the  present  to  humiliate  her  that  she  cannot  forgive. 
I  do  not  wish  to  administer  to  the  feeling  of  jealousy  and  rivalry 
that  exists  between  us  and  England.  I  wish  to  soften  and  allay  it 
as  much  as  possible ;  but  why  close  our  eyes  to  the  fact  that  friend 
ship  is  impossible  while  jealousy  exists.  Hence  England  seizes  every 
island  in  the  sea  and  rock  upon  our  coast  where  she  can  plant  a  gun 
to  intimidate  us  or  to  annoy  our  commerce.  Her  policy  has  been  to 
seize  every  military  and  naval  station  the  world  over.  Why  does 
she  pay  such  enormous  sums  to  keep  her  post  at  Gibraltar,  except  to 
hold  it  "  in  terrorem"  over  the  commerce  of  the  Mediterranean  ? 
Why  her  enormous  expense  to  maintain  a  garrison  at  the  Cape  of 
Good  Hope,  except  to  command  the  great  passage  on  the  way  to  the 
Indies  ?  Why  is  she  at  the  expense  to  keep  her  position  on  the  little 
barren  islands,  Bermuda  and  the  miserable  Bahamas,  and  all  the 
other  islands  along  our  coast,  except  as  sentinels  upon  our  actions  ? 
Docs  England  hold  Bermuda  because  of  any  profit  it  is  to  her?  Has 
she  any  other  motive  for  retaining  it  except  jealousy  which  stimulates 
hostility  to  us?  Is  it  not  the  case  with  all  her  possessions  along  our 
coast?  Why,  then,  talk  about  the  friendly  bearing  of  England 
toward  ua  when  she  is  extending  that  policy  every  day?  New 
treaties  of  friendship,  seizure  of  islands,  and  erection  of  new  colonies 
in  violation  of  her  treaties,  seem  to  be  the  order  of  the  day.  In  view 
of  this  state  of  things,  I  am  in  favor  of  meeting  England  as  we  meet 
a  rival ;  meet  her  boldly,  treat  her  justly  and  fairly,  but  make  no 


54  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

humiliating  concession  even  for  the  sake  of  peace.  She  has  as  mnch 
reason  to  make  concessions  to  us  as  we  have  to  make  them  to  her. 
I  would  not  willingly  disturb  the  peace  of  the  world ;  but,  sir,  the  Bay 
Island  colony  must  be  discontinued.  It  violates  the  treaty. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  it  is  not  my  purpose  to  say  another  word  upon 
our  foreign  relations.  I  have  only  occupied  so  much  time  as  was 
necessary  to  put  myself  right  in  respect  to  the  speech  made  by  the 
senator  from  Delaware,  lie  advocates  one  line  of  policy  in  regard 
to  our  foreign  relations,  and  I  have  deemed  it  my  duty  to  advocate 
another.  It  has  been  my  object  to  put  the  two  systems  by  the  side 
of  each  other  that  the  public  might  judge  between  us. 

Mr.  Mason  having  continued  the  debate  on  Monday,  March 
14th,  Mr.  Clayton  occupied  a  portion  of  that  and  the  succeed 
ing  days  in  a  reply  to  Mr.  Douglas — to  which,  on  Wednesday, 
the  1 7th  of  March,  Mr.  Douglas  responded : 

MR.  PRESIDENT  :  I  had  a  right  to  expect  that  the  senator  from 
Delaware,  in  his  reply,  would  have  ventured  upon  an  argument 
against  the  positions  which  I  had  assumed  in  my  former  speech,  and 
which  he  had  assailed.  It  will  be  observed,  upon  a  close  examination, 
that  he  has  evaded  nearly  every  point  in  controversy  between  us, 
under  the  cover  of  free  indulgence  in  coarse  personalities.  I  do  not 
complain  of  this.  He  had  a  right  to  choose  his  own  course  of  dis 
cussion.  Perhaps  it  was  prudent  in  him  to  pursue  the  course  which 
he  adopted.  I  shall  not  follow  his  example,  however.  I  may  not 
have  the  same  inducements  that  may  have  prompted  him.  If  I  had 
been  driven  from  nearly  every  position  I  had  assumed  in  debate — if 
nearly  every  material  fact  I  had  asserted  had  been  negatived  and 
disproved  by  official  documents  bearing  my  own  signatures — if  I  had 
br.en  convicted  of  giving  one  explanation  of  my  conduct  at  one  time, 
and  at  other  times  different  and  contradictory  reasons,  I  might  be 
prompted  to  seek  refuge  under  personalities  from  the  exposure  that 
might  be  made.  Sir,  I  pass  that  all  by. 

The  senator,  as  a  last  resort,  attempted  to  get  up  unkind  feelings 
between  my  political  friends  and  myself  in  regard  to  this  debate.  He 
endeavored  to  show  that  my  speech  was  an  assault  upon  every  sena 
tor  who  took  a  different  course.  He  went  further,  and  charged  that 
I,  as  a  Presidential  candidate,  was  pursuing  this  course  in  order  to 
destroy  and  break  down  rivals  in  my  own  party.  Sir,  these  insidious 
and  disreputable  assaults  do  not  disturb  my  equanimity.  The  object 
is  to  enlist,  from  prejudice  and  unworthy  motives,  a  sympathy  in  the 
course  of  discussion  which  he  has  attempted  to  maintain.  But  I 
appeal  to  the  Senate  if  I  assailed  any  senator  upon  this  floor,  either 
in  regard  to  the  Hise  treaty  or  the  Clayton  and  Bulwer  treaty.  I 
appeal  to  the  Senate  if  I  mentioned  the  name  of  any  senator,  or  stated 
how  any  one  man  had  voted.  I  did  not  disclose  even  how  the  vote 


STEPHEN      A.DOUGLAS.  55 

stood.  No  citizen  in  America  would  have  known  the  vote  of  any 
senator  on  this  floor  from  my  speech,  or  from  my  participation  in  the 
recent  discussion ;  and  I  have  yet  to  learn  that  a  vindication  of  my 
own  course  involves  an  assault  upon  those  who  chose  to  differ  with 
me.  I  have  not  understood  the  speeches  of  the  senator  from  Michi 
gan  (Mr.  Cass)  and  of  the  senator  from  Virginia  (Mr.  Mason)  and  of 
other  senators,  who  have  spoken  on  this  question,  in  opposition  to 
some  of  my  views,  as  an  attack  on  myself.  It  was  their  duty  to  vin 
dicate  their  own  course  with  the  reasons  which  prompted  them  ;  and 
it  was  my  right  and  my  duty  to  give  the  reasons  which  induced  and 
compelled  me  to  pursue  the  course  that  I  did. 

I  do  not  choose  to  occupy  the  time  of  the  Senate  in  a  matter  that 
partakes  so  much  of  a  personal  character.  But  the  senator  cannot 
avail  himself  of  that  argument  in  vindication  of  his  course  in  sup 
pressing  the  Hise  treaty.  He  is  not  supported  by  that  array  of  names 
which  he  has  produced  for  that  act.  No  one  of  the  senators  ever  did 
sustain  him,  so  far  as  I  know,  in  suppressing  the  Hise  treaty.  That 
treaty  was  never  submitted  to  the  Senate  for  ratification.  The  Se 
nate  were  never  permitted  to  examine  it.  The  treaty,  to  this  day, 
has  been  withheld  from  the  Senate.  You  will  have  to  go  elsewhere 
than  to  the  files  of  this  body  to  find  that  treaty.  How  can  it  be  said 
that  senators  have  sustained  him  in  his  rejection  of  the  Hise  treaty, 
when  he  had  deprived  the  Senate  of  an  opportunity  of  showing 
whether  they  were  for  or  against  it  ?  Sir,  he  cannot  have  the  benefit 
of  those  names  which  he  has  quoted  to  shelter  him  upon  that  point. 

Again,  sir,  he  has  quoted  all  the  eminent  names  from  General 
Jackson  down  to  the  present  time,  to  support  him  in  his  refusal  to 
accept  of  the  exclusive  control  of  the  canal  for  his  own  country.  Sir, 
he  has  no  authority  thus  to  quote  them  ;  he  has  no  authority  for  say 
ing  that  any  one  of  those  eminent  statesmen  were  opposed  to  such  a 
privilege  as  the  Hise  treaty  showed  that  we  could  have  acquired.  It 
is  true  that  when  Central  America  granted  a  privilege  to  a  company 
in  the  Netherlands  to  make  this  canal,  the  administration  of  General 
Jackson,  under  that  state  of  facts,  were  content  with  asserting  our 
right  to  an  equal  participation.  It  is  also  true  that  when  a  French 
man  had  procured  a  charter  for  a  railroad  across  the  isthmus  of 
Panama,  and  thus  it  had  gone  into  the  hands  of  foreigners,  the  ad 
ministration  of  President  Polk  were  content  to  assert  our  claim  to  an 
equal  right.  But  it  is  not  true  that  either  of  them  ever  refused  to  ac 
cept  an  exclusive  privilege  for  this  country  when  voluntarily  tendered. 

I  am  not  going  to  occupy  the  attention  of  the  Senate  with  an  array 
of  names  for  or  against  this  proposition.  I  quoted  no  names  in  my  first, 
argument.  I  addressed  myself  to  the  merits  of  the  question,  and  chose 
to  decide  it  by  arguments  upon  its  merits,  and  not  by  the  authority  of 
great  names.  I  would  rather  see  the  senator  sustain  his  position  now 
by  arguments  upon  the  merits  of  his  own  official  action,  and  not  by  an 
appeal  to  the  action  of  great  men  who  lived  at  a  different  period,  and 
whoso  acts  were  dependent  upon  entirely  different  circumstances. 


56  T1IE      LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

One  word  more,  and  I  proceed  to  the  main  point  at  issue.  Th« 
senator  has  accused  me  of  having  attempted  to  make  this  a  party 
question.  How  did  I  attempt  it?  In  my  speech  of  February  last, 
to  which  he  replied,  he  cannot  find  the  term  Whig  or  Democrat,  01 
a  political  allusion,  or  a  partisan  argument.  I  explained  my  own 
principles  of  action  as  evinced  in  my  votes ;  and  I  expressly  stated 
that  they  were  not  sanctioned  by  either  Whig  or  Democratic  adminis 
trations  upon  some  of  the  points.  I  did  not  invoke  the  aid  of  sympa 
thy  of  party.  I  was  willing  to  stand  upon  the  truth  and  the  soundness 
of  my  own  record,  and  leave  the  future  to  determine  whether  I  wa£» 
right  or  wrong  on  the  question.  Sir,  partisan  politics  have  been 
introduced  by  the  senator,  and  not  by  me.  The  senator,  in  his  speech 
in  reply  to  me,  endeavored  to  show  that  Democratic  administrations 
had  done  this,  and  Democratic  administrations  had  done  that,  and 
appealed  to  partisan  authority,  to  sustain  himself.  I  admit  his  right 
to  introduce  party  questions,  and  to  appeal  to  party  names  as  author 
ity.  I  have  not  done  it,  and  I  deny  his  right  to  charge  it  upon  me. 
Sir,  I  invoked  the  aid  of  no  partisan  feeling  or  party  organization  for 
the  support  of  the  position  I  maintained.  But  when  the  senator 
showed  that  a  majority  of  my  own  party,  on  the  ratification  of  the 
Clayton  and  Bulwer  treaty,  had  recorded  their  names  in  opposition 
to  mine,  he  ought  to  have  been  content,  without  charging  that  I  was 
making  it  a  party  question.  It  was  not  a  very  agreeable  thing  to  me 
to  be  compelled  to  differ  with  three-fourths  of  the  Senate,  including 
a  majority  of  my  own  political  friends,  and  nothing  but  a  sense  of 
duty  would  have  compelled  me  to  take  the  responsibility  of  such  a 
course. 

Xow,  let  us  go  back  to  the  real  point.  Why  all  these  attempts  to 
avoid  the  main  issue?  In  the  first  place  the  senator  denied  that  he 
was  responsible  for  not  sending  the  Hise  treaty  to  the  Senate,  inas 
much  as  it  had  been  rejected  by  Central  America.  Then,  when  I 
showed  that  the  rejection  of  that  treaty  was  procured  by  his  own 
agent  in  obedience  to  his  instructions,  he  denied  the  existence  of  the 
instructions.  When  I  produced  the  instructions,  and  showed  that 
the  agent  acted  in  obedience  to  what  he  believed  to  be  their  true 
meaning,  the  senator  acknowledged  his  opposition  to  the  treaty,  and 
justified  it  upon  the  ground  that  it  guaranteed  the  independence  of 
Nicaragua.  When  I  showed  that  he  could  not  have  objected  to  it  on 
that  ground,  for  the  reason  that  at  that  very  time  he  proposed  a 
guaranty,  in  connection  with  Great  Britain,  of  the  independence  of 
Nicaragua,  he  abandons  that  position,  and  is  driven  to  the  extremity 
of  seeking  refuge  under  what  he  chooses  to  consider  obnoxious 
details.  Wrhen  I  showed  that  his  objections  to  the  details  could  not 
avail  him,  because  it  was  no  reason  for  withholding  the  treaty 
according  to  the  usages  of  the  Senate,  he  then  comes  to  the  point 
that  it  was  better  to  have  a  partnership  privilege  than  an  exclusive 
one.  That  brings  us  to  the  real  question.  Why  could  we  not,  luivo 
come  to  it  at  once?  If  he  was  right  in  his  preference  for  a  European 


STEPHEN     A.    DOUGLAS.  57 

partnership  over  an  exclusive  privilege  to  his  own  country,  why  did 
he  not  avow  the  fact  at  once  and  justify  his  conduct,  instead  of  wast 
ing  the  time  of  the  Senate  in  requiring  me  to  prove  facts  which 
ought  to  have  been  confessed,  and  which  have  been  proven  by  his 
own  written  testimony,  in  opposition  to  his  own  denial? 

In  his  last  speech  the  senator  chose  to  persevere  in  representing 
me  as  the  advocate  of  a  canal  to  be  made  through  Central  America, 
with  funds  from  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States.  I  need  not 
remind  the  senator  that  he  had  no  authority,  from  anything  I  have 
said,  to  attribute  to  me  such  a  purpose.  I  certainly  did  not  assume 
any  such  position,  while  my  remarks  were  calculated  to  negative 
such  an  idea.  My  position  was  this:  that  while  negotiating  for  the 
right  of  way  for  a  canal  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific,  we  should 
have  accepted  the  offer  to  our  own  government  of  the  exclusive  right 
to  control  it,  instead  of  a  partnership  with  England  and  the  other 
powers  of  the  earth.  The  Hise  treaty  granted  the  privilege  either 
to  the  United  States  or  to  an  American  company  under  our  protec 
tion,  at  our  option.  I  insisted  that  we  had  the  same  right  to  take  it 
to  ourselves  that  we  had  to  take  it  jointly  with  other  powers.  It 
requires  no  further  exertion  of  constitutional  power  to  execute  and 
maintain  and  regulate  an  exclusive  privilege  to  America  than  it  did  to 
execute  and  maintain  a  partnership  privilege  with  European  powers. 
Hence  his  objections  upon  that  score  must  fall  to  the  ground.  The 
simple  question  was,  whether  it  would  have  been  wise  to  accept  that 
privilege.  Sir,  I  think  it  would  have  been.  I  am  not  going  to 
repeat  the  argument  I  made  the  other  day  upon  that  point.  If  it 
had  been  given  to  us,  we  could  have  opened  the  canal  to  the  world 
upon  such  terms  as  we  deemed  proper.  We  could  have  withdrawn 
the  use  of  it  whenever  a  nation  failed  to  respect  our  rights.  It  would 
have  been  a  bond  of  peace  instead  of  being  an  apple  of  discord 
between  us  and  other  nations;  because  when  you  bring  all  the  great 
Powers  of  the  earth  into  partnership,  constant  disputes  will  arise  as 
to  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  rights  of  the  respective  parties.  The 
history  of  these  negotiations  proves  this  fact. 

But,  sir,  let  me  ask  the  senator  what  he  has  gained  by  his  rejec 
tion  of  the  Hise  treaty?  He  has  given  the  world  to  understand  by 
his  speeches  that  he  has  accomplished  two  great  objects:  the  one  to 
open  a  canal  between  the  Atlantic  and  the  Pacific  oceans — the  other 
to  put  a  stop  to  British  encroachments  in  Central  America.  Has  he 
accomplished  either  of  those  objects?  I  ask  what  privilege  he  has 
gained  to  make  a  canal?  He  has  not  even  secured  the  right  of  way 
for  a  canal,  either  jointly  or  separately.  He  is  responsible  for  having 
defeated  the  project  of  a  canal  between  the  two  oceans.  He  refused 
the  grant  of  the  right  of  way,  because  it  gave  the  right  to  control  the 
work  exclusively  to  his  own  country.  The  treaty  which  he  caused 
to  be  made,  failed  to  receive  the  sanction  of  the  Senate.  Thus  we 
are  left  without  any  right  of  way — without  any  charter,  right,  or 
privilege.  Instead  of  accomplishing  that  object,  he  is  responsible  for 

3* 


68  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

its  defeat.  All  that  he  has  to  boast  of  is,  that  he  deprived  his  own 
country  of  an  inestimable  privilege,  the  necessity  and  importance  of 
which  are  now  conceded  on  all  hands. 

"What,  then,  have  we  gained  by  his  diplomacy?  Why,  sir,  after 
having  failed  in  getting  the  privilege  of  making  the  canal,  either 
jointly  or  separate!}',  he  makes  a  treaty  with  Great  Britain  by  -which, 
if  we  hereafter  secure  it,  the  privilege  is  given  to  Great  Britain  as 
well  as  to  ourselves.  The  Clayton  and  Buhver  treaty  provides  that 
any  right  of  way  or  communication  which  may  be  secured  at  any 
future  time,  shall  be  open  alike  to  England  and  the  United  States, 
and  under  the  joint  control  and  protection  of  the'  two  powers.  We 
have  a  treaty  with  England  about  a  canal  in  Central  America,  but 
we  have  none  with  any  of  the  Central  American  States.  Let  me 
ask,  then,  how  much  have  we  gained  ?  Has  he  expelled  the  British 
from  Central  America  by  his  treaty?  What  inch  of  country  have 
they  given  up.  What  right  have  they  abandoned  ?  What  functionary 
have  they  .withdrawn?  Where  is  the  evidence  that  you  have  driven 
the  British  from  Central  America?  Are  they  not  still  in  the  full 
enjoyment  of  their  protectorate  upon  the  Mosquito  coast  ?  Have  you 
driven  them  from  the  Balize? 

The  senator  from  Michigan  (Mr.  Cass),  and  the  chairman  of  the 
Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  (Mr.  Mason),  in  their  speeches,  have 
maintained  that  the  Clayton  and  Bulwer  treaty  would  fairly  include 
the  Balize  as  a  part  of  Central  America.  But  the  senator  from  Dela 
ware,  while  acting  as  the  secretary  of  state,  gave  a  construction  to 
that  treaty  which  excludes  the  Balize.  The  senator,  therefore,  is 
fstopped  from  saying  that  lie  lias  expelled  the  British  from  the 
Balize.  The  fact  shows  that  he  has  not  driven  the  British  protecto 
rate  from  the  coast.  We  find  that  instead  of  leaving  Central  America, 
the  British  have  not  only  established  a  colony  at  the  Bay  Islands, 
but,  if  the  newspaper  information  received  by  the  last  steamers  can 
be  credited,  they  have  bombarded  the  towns  upon  the  main  land,  and 
taken  forcible  possession  of  a  part  of  the  state  of  Honduras.  Then 
I  repeat  the  question  to  the  senator,  what  has  he  gained  ?  I  can  tell 
him  what  has  resulted  from  his  negotiation.  He  lias  recognized  the 
right  of  Great  Britain  and  all  European  powers  to  interfere  with  the 
affairs  of  the  American  states.  He  has  recognized  that  right  by  a 
treaty;  and  he  has  guaranteed  to  England  that  we  will  use  our  good 
offices  to  enable  them  to  enter  into  arrangements  with  these  Central 
American  states.  He  has  excluded  the  idea  that  the  question  of  thy 
Central  American  states  is  an  American  question,  and  by  his  nego 
tiation  lias  opened  it  as  a  European  question.  In  other  words,  he 
lias,  by  his  treaty,  abolished  what  is  known  as  the  Monroe  doctrine, 
with  reference  to  a  large  portion  of  the  American  continent. 

This  brings  me  to  the  examination  of  another  question.  The  sena 
tor  from  Delaware  chose  to  arraign  me  upon  that  portion  of  iny 
speech,  in  which  I  stated  that  I  was  unwilling  to  give  a  pledge  never 
to  annex  any  more  territory  to  the  United  States.  lie  then  went  on 


STEPHEN     A.DOUGLAS.  59 

to  argue  against  annexation,  said  "we  were  pledged,  and  that  the 
pledge  given  was  correct,  and  attempted  to  vindicate  it.  He  ar 
raigned  me  for  having  said  that  such  a  treaty  could  not  be  enforced 
through  all  time  to  come.  I  explained  to  him  that  my  idea  was  that 
the  growth  of  this  country  was  so  great  and  so  rapid  that  the  har 
riers  of  any  treaty  would  be  irresistibly  broken  through  by  natural 
causes,  over  which  we  had  no  control ;  and  hence  that  the  treaty 
ought  not  to  have  been  made.  He  told  me  that  the  explanation 
made  it  worse,  and  that  he  would  show  that  the  doctrine  involved 
moral  turpitude  :  that  he  was  amazed  and  grieved  that  any  one  here 
from  this  high  place  should  proclaim  such  a  sentiment. 

Sir,  I  will  proceed  to  show  my  authority  on  that  point,  which  I 
think  he  will  be  compelled  to  respect.  In  taking  that  position,  I 
only  reiterated  the  opinions  expressed  by  the  late  secretary  of  state, 
and  now  senator  from  Massachusetts  (Mr.  Everett),  in  his  letter  to 
the  Comte  de  Sartiges,  a  few  months  ago,  in  respect  to  the  island  of 
Cuba ;  and  when  the  senator  from  Delaware  arraigns  me  for  utter 
ing  sentiments  involving  a  want  of  respect  for  treaty  stipulations,  I 
will  turn  him  over  to  the  senator  from  Massachusetts  and  to  ex-Pre 
sident  Fillmore,  and  allow  them  to  settle  that  issue  between  them 
selves.  I  wish  to  call  the  attention  of  the  senator  to  the  letter  of 
Mr.  Everett  to  the  Comte  de  Sartiges.  In  that  letter  you  find  the 
following  passage  in  regard  to  a  proposed  convention  stipulating  tlmt 
we  would  never  annex  Cuba  ; 

"  The  convention  -would  be  of  no  value  unless  it  -were  lasting  ;  accordingly 
its  terms  express  a  perpetuity  of  purpose  and  obligation.  Now,  it  may  well  be 
doubted  whether  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  would  allow  the  treaty- 
making  power  to  impose  a  permanent  disability  on  the  American  government 
for  all'conung  time,  and  prevent  it,  under  any  future  change  of  circumstances, 
from  doino-  what  has  been  so  often  done  in  times  past.  In  1803  the  United 
States  purchased  Louisiana  of  France,  and  in  1819  they  purchased  Florida  of 
Spain.  It  is  not  within  the  competence  of  the  treaty-making  power  in  1852 
effectually  to  bind  the  government  in  all  its  branches ;  and  for  all  coming 
time  not  to  make  a  similar  purchase  of  Cuba." 

The'senatorfrom  Delaware  will  see  that  the  late  secretary  of  state, 
Mr.  Everett,  by  the  direction  of  President  Fillmore,  has  pronounced 
such  a  guaranty  to  be  a  violation  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  and  the  exercise  of  an  authority  not  conferred  by  that  instru 
ment1  Sir,  if  the  Constitution  gave  no  authority  to  make  a  pledge 
by  this  government  that  we  will  never  annex  Cuba,  I  suppose  it  does 
not  authorize  a  pledge  never  to  annex  Central  America.  The  con- 
stitu'ional  objection  applies  to  the  Clayton  and  Bulwer  treaty,  in  re 
lation  to  Central  America,  with  the  same  force  that  it  did  to.  the 
proposed  convention  in  respect  to  Cuba.  They  take  higher  ground 
than  I  did.  I  was  not  willing  to  do  that  which  would  involve  a 
breach  of  faith  in  the  progress  of  events.  But  I  did  not  go  so  tar  as 
to  denv  the  constitutional  power  to  make  such  a  treaty.  And,  there 
fore  Task  the  senator  why  he  did  not  arraign  President  I  illmon 


GO  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

why  lie  did  not  arraign  the  late  secretary  of  state,  Mr.  Everett,  for 
uttering  those  monstrous  sentiments,  instead  of  hurling  his  anathe 
mas  upon  my  head,  as  if  I  had  been  the  only  man  in  America  who 
ever  ventured  to  proclaim  such  opinions?  According  to  the  opin 
ions  of  President  Fillmore,  and  his  secretary  of  state,  as  promulgated 
in  Mr.  Everett's  celebrated  letter,  and  applauded  by  the  almost  una 
nimous  voice  of  the  American  people,  the  Clayton  and  Bulwer  treaty 
was  a  palpable  violation  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 
But  Mr.  Fillmore  and  Mr.  Everett  were  not  content  with  denying 
the  power  of  this  government,  under  the  Constitution,  to  enter  into 
this  treaty  stipulation.  They  deny  its  propriety,  its  justice,  its  wis 
dom,  as  well  as  the  right  to  make  it.  I  will  read  a  passage  upon  this 
point: 

"  There  is  another  strong  objection  to  the  proposed  agreement.  Among  tlie 
oldest  traditions  of  the  Federal  Government  is  an  aversion  to  political  alliances 
with  European  powers.  In  his  memorable  Farewell  Address,  President  Wash 
ington  says  :  '  The  great  rule  of  conduct  for  us  in  regard  to  foreign  nations  is, 
in  extending  our  commercial  relations  to  have  with  them  as  little  political  con 
nection  as  possible.  So  far  as  we  have  already  formed  engagements,  let  them 
be  fulfilled  with  perfect  good  faith.  Here  let  us  stop.'  President  Jefferson,  in 
his  inaugural  address,  in  1801,  warned  the  country  against  entangling  alliances. 
This  expression,  now  become  proverbial,  was  unquestionably  used  by  Mr.  Jef 
ferson  in  reference  to  the  alliance  with  France  of  1778,  an  alliance  at  the  time 
of  incalculable  benefit  to  the  United  States,  but  which  in  less  than  twenty  years 
came  near  involving  us  in  the  wars  of  the  Fre.nch  Revolution,  and  laid  the  foun 
dation  of  heavy  claims  upon  Congress  not  extinguished  to  the  present  day.  It 
is  a  significant  coincidence  that  the  particular  provision  of  the  alliance  which 
occasioned  these  evils  was  that  under  which  France  called  upon  us  to  aid  her 
in  defending  her  West  Indian  possessions  against  England.  Nothing  less  than 
the  unbounded  influence  of  Washington  rescued  the  Union  from  the  perils  of 
that  crisis  and  preserved  our  neutrality." 

As  the  senator  from  Delaware  is  fond  of  the  authority  of  great 
names,  I  not  only  furnish  him  with  the  name  of  the  late  secretary  of 
state,  and  that  of  the  late  President  of  the  United  States,  upon  the 
points  to  which  I  have  referred,  but  I  have  the  authority  of  these 
gentlemen  for  saying  that  his  doctrine  witli  regard  to  Central  America 
is  in  violation  of  the  solemn  warnings  of  the  Father  of  his  Country, 
and  in  derogation  of  the  protests  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  repeated  over 
and  over  again  during  his  eventful  life.  I  find  that  the  late  secretary 
of  state  has  again,  in  another  passage,  summed  up  the  objections 
which  I  entertained  to  the  Clayton  and  Bulwer  treaty,  and  I  \\ill 
call  the  attention  of  the  Senate  to  it.  It  is  this: 

"  But  the  President  has  a  graver  objection  to  entering  into  the  proposed  con 
vention.  He  has  no  wish  to  disguise  the  feeling,  that  the  compact,  although 
equal  in  its  terms,  would  be  very  unequal  in  substance  France  and  England, 
by  entering  into  it,  would  disable  themselves  from  obtaining  possession  of  an 
island  remote  from  their  seats  of  government,  belonging  to  another  European 
power,  whose  natural  right  to  possess  it  must  always  be  as  good  as  their  own 
— a  distant  island,  in  another  hemisphere,  and  one  which  by  MO  ordinary  or 
peaceful  course  of  things  could  ever  belong  to  either  of  them.  If  the  present 


STEP  II  EN     A.     DOUGLAS.  C>] 

balance  of  power  in  Europe  should  be  broken  up ;  if  Spain  should  become  tin- 
Jtble  to  maintain  the  island  in  her  possession,  and  France  and  England  should 
be  engaged  m  a  death-struggle  with  each  other,  Cuba  might  then  be  the  prize 
of  the  victor.  Till  these  events  all  take  place,  the  President  does  not  see  how 
saba.  can  belong  to  any  European  power  but  Spain.  The  United  States  on 
the  other  hand,  would,  by  the  proposed  convention,  disable  themselves  from 
making  an  acquisition  which  might  take  place  without  any  disturbance  of  ex 
isting  foreign  relations,  and  in  the  natural  order  of  things." 

If  the  prosposed  guaranty  never  to  annex  Cuba  was  not  reciprocal 
as  between  the  United  States  and  England,  how  is  it  that  it  can  be 
said  that  a  similar  guaranty  respecting  Central  America  was  reci 
procal  ?  Every  argument  urged  by  the  late  secretary  of  state  against 
reciprocity  in  one,  applies  with  equal  force  to  the  other.  It  may  be 
said  that  Cuba  stands  at  the  entrance  of  the  Gulf  of  Mexico;  but  it 
can  be  said  with  equal  truth  that  Central  America  is  upon  the  public 
highway  to  our  Pacific  possessions.  Both  stand  as  gates  to  this  pub 
lic  highway,  and  every  argument  urged  in  relation  to  the  one  is 
equally  applicable  to  the  other. 

^  Now  I  have  to  quote  the  late  secretary  of  state  and  President 
Fillmoro  against  the  senator  from  Delaware  on  another  point.  When 
I  remarked  that  the  history  of  this  country  showed  that  our  growth 
and  expansion  could  not  be  resisted,  and  would  inevitably  break 
through  whatever  barriers  might  be  erected  by  the  .present  genera 
tion  to  restrain  our  future  progress,  the  senator  from  Delaware  as 
sumed  the  right  to  rebuke  me  for  uttering  sentiments  implying  per 
fidy  and  moral  turpitude.  He  desired  to  know  if  sentiments  of  that 
kind  were  to  be  tolerated  in  the  American  Senate?  Let  him  hear 
his  friend  from  Massachusetts  on  that  point,  in  the  same  docu 
ment  : 

"  That  a  convention  such  as  is  proposed  would  be  a  transitory  arrangement, 
Bare  to  be  swept  away  by  the  irresistible  tide  of  affairs  in  a  new  country,  is,  to 
the  apprehension  of  the  President,  too  obvious  to  require  a  labored  argument. 
The  project  rests  on  principles  applicable,  if  at  all,  to  Europe,  where  interna 
tional  relations  are  in  their  basis  of  great  antiquity,  slowly  modified  for  the 
most  part  in  the  progress  of  time  and  events;  and  not  applicable  to  America, 
Avhich,  but  lately  a  waste,  is  filling  up  with  intense  rapidity,  and  adjusting,  on 
natural  principles,  those  territorial  relations  which  on  the  first  discovery  of  lie 
continent  were  in  a  good  degree  fortuitous."  .... 

"  But  whatever  may  be  thought  of  these  last  suggestions,  it  would  seem  im 
possible  for  any  one  who  reflects  upon  the  events  glanced  at  in  this  note  to 
mistake  the  law  of  American  growth  and  progress,  or  think  it  can  ultimately 
arrested  by  a  convention  like  that  proposed.  In  the  judgment  of  the  Presi 
dent,  it  would  be  as  easy  to  throw  a  dam  from  Cape  Florida  to  Cuba,  in  the 
hope  of  stopping  the  flow  of  the  Gulf  Stream,  as  to  attempt,  by  a  compact  like 
this,  to  fix  the  fortunes  of  Cuba,  now  and  for  hereafter,  or,  as  expressed  in  the 
French  text  of  the  convention,  '  pour  le  present  comme  pour  1'avenir.'  that  is 
for  all  coming  time." 

There  the  senator  is  told  that  such  a  stipulation  might  be  applica 
ble  to  European  politics,  but  would  be  iinsnited  and  unfitted  to  Ame 
rican  affairs  ;  that  he  has  mistaken  entirely  the  system  of  policy, 


62  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OP 

which  should  be  applied  to  our  own  country,  that  he  has  predicated 
his  action  upon  those  old,  antiquated  notions  which  belong  to  the 
stationary  and  retrograde  movements  of  the  Old  World,  and  find  no 
sympathy  in  the  youthful,  uprising  aspirations  of  the  AmericarPheart. 
I  indorse  fully  the  sentiment.  I  insist  that  there  is  a  difference,  a 
wide  difference,  between  the  system  of  policy  which  should  be  pursued 
in  America  and  that  which  would  be  applicable  to  Europe.  Europe 
is  antiquated,  decrepit,  tottering  on  the  verge  of  dissolution.  When 
you  visit  her,  the  objects  which  enlist  your  highest  admiration  are 
the  relics  of  past  greatness  ;  the  broken  columns  erected  to  departed 
power.  It  is  one  vast  graveyard,  where  you  find  here  a  tomb  indi 
cating  the  burial  of  the  arts ;  there  a  monument  marking  the  spot 
where  liberty  expired;  another  to  the  memory  of  a  great  man, 
whose  place  has  never  been  filled.  The  choicest  products  of  her 
classic  soil  consists  in  relics,  which  remain  as  sad  memorials  of  de 
parted  glory  and  fallen  greatness!  They  bring  up  the  memories  of 
the  dead,  but  inspire  no  hope  for  the  living!  Here  everything  is 
fresh,  blooming,  expanding,  and  advancing.  We  wish  a  wise,  prac 
tical  policy  adapted  to  our  condition  and  position.  Sir,  the  states 
man  who  would  shape  the  policy  of  America  by  European  models, 
has  failed  to  perceive  the  antagonism  which  exists  in  the  relative 
position,  history,  institutions — in  everything  pertaining  to  the  Old 
and  the  New  World. 

The  senator  from  Delaware  seems  always  to  have  had  his  back 
turned  upon  his  own  country,  and  his  eye  intently  fixed  upon  Europe 
as  the  polar  star  of  all  his  observations.  If  it  would  not  be  deemed 
an  indelicate  interposition  between  the  senator  from  Delaware  and 
his  friend  from  Massachusetts  (Mr.  Everett),  I  should  be  inclined  to 
say  that  the  criticism  of  the  late  secretary  of  state,  although  not  in 
tended  for  the  senator  from  Delaware,  is  strictly  applicable  to  his 
diplomacy,  and  fully  deserved.  I  shall  not  go  into  the  discussion  of 
that  question,  however.  I  deny  the  right  of  the  senator  from  Dela 
ware  to  come  back  at  me  on  that  point.  I  shall  certainly  turn  him 
over  to  his  friend  from  Massachusetts  (Mr.  Everett),  because  he  will 
not  dare  to  accuse  him  of  political  prejudices  and  partisan  feelings. 
He  has  said  severer  things  of  the  senator's  diplomacy  than  I  thought 
the  rules  of  the  Senate  would  authorize  me  to  indulge  in.  The  ex- 
President  of  the  United  States  has  sanctioned  them,  and  now  I  think 
I  am  at  liberty  to  refer  to  them,  for  if  it  were  not  within  the  rules  of 
courtesy  and  diplomacy,  they  would  not  be  sent  here.  But,  sir,  I 
may  be  permitted  to  add  that  the  nation  has  sanctioned  them  too ; 
for  I  am  not  aware  that  a  State  paper  was  ever  issued  in  America 
that  received  a  heartier  response  in  most  of  its  principles,  than  the 
letter  of  the  late  secretary  of  state  to  the  Comte  de  Sartiges,  to 
which  I  have  referred.  Sir,  if  he  had  done  nothing  else  to  render 
his  administration  of  the  State  Department  illustrious,  his  name 
would  live  in  all  coining  time  in  that  diplomatic  letter,  as  one  who 
could  appreciate  the  spirit  of  the  age,  and  perceive  the  destiny  of  the 
•-io>ion.  No  document  has  ever  received  such  a  universal  sanction 


STEPHEN     A.    DOUGLAS.  63 

of  the  American  people  as  the  one  to  which  I  have  referred,  con 
demning  and  repudiating  the  diplomacy  of  the  senator  from  Dela 
ware  in  relation  to  the  American  continent. 

Mr.  President,  I  have  not  much  more  to  add.  The  senator  has 
arraigned  me  also  for  having  attempted  to  arouse  unkind  feelings  be 
tween  the  United  States  and  England.  I  deny  that  the  arraignment 
is  just. 

I  have  attempted  no  such  thing.  I  have  never  attempted  to  foster 
jealousies  or  unkind  feelings  between  our  own  country  and  any 
other.  I  have  attempted  to  plant  our  relations  on  amicable  terms, 
by  speaking  the  truth  plainly  as  we  and  they  know  it  to  exist.  Tho 
remarks  that  I  have  made  about  friendly  relations  between  the  two 
countries,  were  drawn  out  by  his  statement  that  England  was  known 
to  be  so  "  friendly"  to  us.  I  said  to  him  I  did  not  think  the  friendly 
relations  of  England  constituted  any  claim  upon  our  gratitude.  I 
have  seen  no  evidence  of  that  friendship.  I  said  frankly  I  did  not 
think  that  England  loved  us,  and  it  wTas  useless  for  us  to  pretend 
that  we  loved  her.  The  history  of  the  two  countries  proves  it.  The 
daily  action  of  the  two  countries  proves  it.  England  is  spending  her 
millions  to  maintain  her  fortifications  all  along  our  coast ;  at  the  Ber 
mudas,  the  Bahamas,  and  at  Jamaica,  and  on  every  rock  and  barren 
waste  along  the  American  coast.  What  does  she  keep  them  up  for  ? 
Does  she  make  money  out  of  them  ?  Why,  you  all  know  that  they  are 
a  source  of  unbounded  expenditure  to  her.  Does  it  extend  her  com 
merce  ?  Does  it  employ  her  shipping  ?  'Not  at  all.  Why  does  she 
keep  them  ?  In  order  to  point  her  guns  at  America. 

Well,  if  she  is  so  friendly  to  us,  and  we  are  so  friendly  to  her,  what 
necessity  is  there  for  pointing  her  cannon  all  the  time  at  us  ?  And 
if  these  are  evidences  of  friendship,  why  do  we  not  reciprocate  it  by 
sending  over  a  few  cannon  and  planting  them  on  every  little  island 
and  rock  near  her  coast  ?  If  we  were  to  seize  upon  every  military 
and  naval  position,  and  expend  millions  in  keeping  up  fortifications 
all  along  her  coast,  would  that  be  any  evidence  of  friendly  feeling  on 
our  part  toward  England  ?  I  do  not  see  it. 

Again :  the  moment  it  was  discovered  that  we  were  to  acquire 
California  as  a  consequence  of  the  Mexican  war,  England  sent  her 
armed  ships  and  seized  possession  of  the  town  of  San  Juan,  and  I 
have  the  authority  of  the  senator  from  Delaware  for  saying  there  is 
reason  to  believe  that  the  act  was  done  out  of  hostility  to  the  Amer 
ican  government.  Why  did  she  want  the  town  of  San  Juan  ?  Sim 
ply  for  the  reason  that  by  the  Mexican  treaty  our  possessions  had  been 
enlarged  upon  the  Pacific  coast,  and  it  evidently  became  necessary, 
in  order  to  preserve  this  Union  and  maintain  our  commerce,  that  we 
should  have  the  line  of  intercommunication  between  the  two  oceans 
so  as  to  connect  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  States  together ;  and  there 
fore,  in  order  to  cut  off  our  right  of  way,  in  order  to  establish  a  toll 
gate  upon  our  public  highway,  she  seized  possession  of  that  point  as 
the  one  from  which  she  could  annoy  us  most. 

The  senator  will  not  pretend  that  he  believes  that  act  originated 


64  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

in  friendly  feelings  toward  us  on  the  part  of  England.  I  have  his 
authority  in  his  public  documents  for  saying  that  he  believes  it  ori 
ginated  in  motives  of  jealousy  and  hostility.  The  object  was,  not  to 
advance  her  own  interest,  not  to  increase  her  own  commerce,  not  to 
extend  her  own  power,  but  to  restrain,  fetter,  and  cripple  our  ener 
gies  and  our  power.  Are  these  acts  evidence  of  friendship  on  her 
part  toward  us,  and  are  we  so  constituted  that  we  feel  grateful  for 
them  ?  Sir,  let  us  not  play  the  hypocrite  upon  this  subject.  Let  us 
speak  out  the  naked  truth,  plainly  and  boldly.  AVe  feel  that  this 
seizure  of  every  rock  and  island  upon  our  coast,  and  converting  them 
into  garrisoned  fortresses,  with  guns  to  bear  on  American  commerce 
and  American  interests,  are  no  evidence  of  friendship.  We  feel  that 
these  attempts  to  surround  and  fetter  us,  and  hem  us  in,  are  evidences 
of  hostility,  which  it  is  our  duty  plainly  to  see  and  boldly  to  resist. 
Sir,  the  way  to  establish  friendly  relations  with  England  is,  to  let 
her  know  that  we  are  not  so  stupid  as  not  to  understand  her  policy, 
nor  so  pusillanimous  as  to  submit  to  her  aggressions.  The  moment 
she  understands  that  we  mean  what  we  say,  and  will  carry  out  any 
principle  we  profess,  she  will  be  very  careful  not  to  create  any  point 
of  difference  between  us.  It  is  want  of  candor  and  frankness  that 
keeps  the  two  nations  in  conflict  with  each  other.  I  say,  that  as  long 
as  this  policy  of  hemming  us  in,  and  fettering  us,  and  trying  to  re 
strain  our  growth  and  curtail  our  power  continues,  we  cannot  feel 
friendly  and  kindly  toward  her ;  and  so  long  as  she  persists  in  that 
policy,  we  ought  not  to  believe  that  she  feels  kindly  toward  us.  If 
we  tell  her  so,  she  will  do  one  of  two  things ;  either  abandon  her 
aggressive  course,  or  avow  her  hostility ;  and  of  all  things  let  us 
know  whether  she  is  our  friend  or  our  enemy.  Therefore,  I  will 
repeat  very  frankly,  that  it  is  useless  to  endeavor  to  conceal  the  fact 
that  there  are  jealousies  between  us  and  England  growing  out  of 
rival  interests,  and  that  her  policy  has  for  its  aim  to  restrain  our 
power  rather  than  increasing  her  own.  Our  policy  is,  to  enhance 
our  own  power  and  greatness,  without  attempting  to  restrain  hers. 
Ours  is  generous,  honorable,  and  justifiable;  hers  is  illiberal,  unkind, 
unjust,  and  we  ought  to  tell  her  so. 

I  believe,  Mr.  President,  I  have  said  all  I  have  to  say  upon  this 
question.  My  object  has  been  simply  to  reply  to  the  points  raised 
by  the  senator  in  his  speech.  I  do  not  wish  to  travel  over  the  ground 
again.  There  are  many  other  points  in  the  discussion  into  which  I 
could  have  gone.  There  are  many  other  positions  that  the  docu 
ments  which  have  been  lately  published  would  furnish  me  ample 
material  for  prolonging  the  discussion,  but  I  do  not  wish  to  occupy 
the  time  of  the  Senate.  I  only  wish  to  show  that  the  real  points  tit 
issue  are :  first,  that  the  senator  preferred  a  partnership  with  Eng 
land  to  an  exclusive  privilege  to  his  own  country  for  the  great  intw- 
oceanic  canal.  Secondly,  that  he  believes  in  the  policy  of  pledging 
this  country  never  to  annex  any  more  territory  in  all  time  to  come. 
I  repudiate  that  policy.  These  are  the  main  points  between  us.  and 


STEP  II  EN     A.     DOUGLAS.  65 

the  last  point,  in  the  course  of  the  discussion,  seems  to  have  become 
the  material  one.  He  is  opposed  to  all  further  annexation,  and  wishes 
to  make  treaties  now  to  restrain  us  in  all  time  to  come  from  extend 
ing  our  possessions. 

I  do  not  wish  to  annex  any  more  territory  now.  But  I  avow 
freely  that  I  foresee  the  day  when  you  will  be  compelled  to  do  it, 
and  cannot  help  it,  and  when  treaties  cannot  prevent  the  consumma 
tion  of  the  act.  Hence  my  policy  would  be  to  hold  the  control  of 
our  own  action,  give  no  pledges  upon  the  subject,  but  bide  our  time, 
and  be  at  liberty  to  do  whatever  our  interest,  our  honor,  and  duty  may 
require  when  the  time  for  action  may  come.  An  old,  decrepit  nation, 
tottering  and  ready  to  fall  to  pieces,  may  well  seek  for  pledges  and 
guaranties  from  a  youthful,  vigorous,  growing  power,  to  protect  her 
old  age.  But  a  young  nation,  with  all  her  freshness,  vigor,  and 
youth,  desires  no  limits  fixed  to  her  greatness,  no  boundaries  to  her 
future  growth.  She  desires  to  be  left  free  to  exercise  her  own  powers, 
exert  her  own  energies,  according  to  her  own  sense  of  duty  in  all 
coming  time.  This,  sir,  is  the  main  issue  between  us,  and  I  am 
ready  to  submit  it  to  the  Senate  and  to  the  country. 

[Senator  Butler,  in  continuation  of  the  debate  on  the  same  day, 
having  assailed  some  of  the  positions  maintained  by  Senator  Douglas, 
and  pronounced  a  eulogy  upon  England  and  her  literature,  Senator 
Douglas  replied :] 

ME.  PRESIDENT  :  In  reply  to  the  senator  from  South  Carolina,  I 
wish  to  state  to  him,  without  going  into  the  controversy  as  to  which 
is  the  right  policy  for  the  President  when  a  treaty  contains  objects 
desirable  and  details  obnoxious,  that  he  will  find  an  example  in  point 
in  tke  case  of  the  Mexican  treaty  containing  provisions  which  the 
President  and  Senate  both  regarded  as  unconstitutional,  yet  the 
President  sent  the  treaty  here,  and  pointed  out  the  obnoxious 
parts.  The  senator  and  those  acting  with  him  modified  it,  perfected 
it,  voted  for  it,  and  ratified  it  in  opposition  to  my  vote,  and  it  became 
the  law  of  the  land.  It  is  a  case  precisely  in  point,  and  I  merely 
mention  it,  and  leave  that  part  of  the  question. 

MR.  BUTLER. — I  think  the  Mexican  treaty  was  sent  as  an  entirety. 
We  amended  it  no  doubt,  but  it  was  sent  as  an  entirety  by  President 
Polk,  saying  that  Mr.  Trist  had  usurped  power  which  he  did  not 
possess.  It°was  exactly  one  of  those  instances  in  which  the  treaty 
had  been  made,  and  he  asked  the  Senate  to  adopt  it,  but  he  sent  it 
in  as  an  entire  thing. 

MR.  DOUGLAS. — The  President  sent  it  in,  stating  that  there  were 
certain  provisions  in  it  which  must  be  striken  out  before  it  could  bf. 
sanctioned  by  him.  But  now  to  another  point:  The  gentleman  com 
mented  upon  a  remark  that  I  had  made,  and  which  also  was  con, 
tained  in  the  letter  of  the  late  secretary  of  state  (Mr.  Everett),  and 
seems  to  suppose  that  we  were  advocating  the  doctrine  of  not  ob- 
fcervino-  the  faith  of  treaties.  That  did  not  put  us  before  the  country 
in  the  true  position  which  we  have  assumed.  My  position  is  this . 


66  THE     LIFE     AND      SPEECHES     OF 

that  we  should  never  make  a  treaty  which  we  cannot  carry  into  full 
execution ;  that  good  faith  requires  us  not  to  make  a  treaty  unless 
we  intend  to  execute  it,  nor  make  one  which  we  probably  cannot  be 
able  to  execute.  My  argument,  therefore,  was  an  argument  against 
the  making  of  treaties  improperly  upon  points  that  were  unnecessary, 
and  which  could  not  be  carried  into  effect,  and  not  in  favor  of  violat 
ing  any  treaties  that  had  been  made.  It  was  an  argument  in  favor 
of  the  sanctity  of  treaties ;  and  those  who  make  treaties  profusely 
and  recklessly,  binding  us  for  all  time  to  come  without  reference  to 
the  ability  in  future  to  execute  them,  are  the  ones  who  ought  to 
be  arraigned,  if  anybody  should  be,  for  not  being  faithful  to  treaty 
stipulations.  I  wish,  therefore,  to  make  this  explanation,  in  order 
that  no  misapprehension  as  to  the  position  which  I  have  assumed 
may  be  entertained  in  any  quarter. 

The  senator  referred  to  a  remark  of  mine  in  regard  to  the  decay 
and  decline  of  European  powers,  and  made  it  the  excuse  for  a  eulo- 
gium  upon  England  as  the  source  from  which  we  have  derived  every 
thing  that  is  valuable  in  science  and  art ;  in  literature,  law,  and  politics. 

When  I  am  reminded  of  the  greatness  of  England,  as  connected 
with  her  statesmen  and  orators,  and  the  illustrious  names  of  Hamp- 
den  and  Sydney  are  pointed  to  as  examples,  I  cannot  fail  to  remem 
ber — I  can  never  forget — that  the  same  England  which  gave  them 
birth,  and  should  have  felt  a  mother's  pride  and  love  in  their  virtues 
and  services,  persecuted  her  noble  sons  to  the  dungeon  and  the 
scaffold,  and  attempted  to  brand  their  names  with  infamy  in  all  com 
ing  time,  for  the  very  causes  which  have  endeared  them  to  us  and 
filled  the  republican  world  with  their  fame !  NOT  am  I  unmindful 
of  the  debt  of  gratitude  which  the  present  generation  owes  to  the 
brilliant  galaxy  of  great  names  whose  fortune  it  was  to  have  been 
born  and  to  have  suffered  in  England,  and  whose  labors  and  re 
searches  in  political,  legal,  and  physical  science — in  literature,  poetry, 
and  art,  have  added  so  much  lustre  on  their  native  land.  Some 
pursued  their  labors  under  the  protection  and  patronage  of  the  Eng 
lish  government — others  in  defiance  of  her  tyranny  and  vengeance. 
I  award  all  credit  and  praise  to  the  authors  of  all  the  blessings  and 
advantages  we  have  inherited  from  that  source. 

I  cannot  go  as  far  as  the  senator  from  South  Carolina.  I  cannot 
recognize  England  as  our  mother.  If  so,  she  is  and  ever  has  been  a 
cruel  and  unnatural  mother.  I  do  not  find  the  evidence  of  her  affec 
tion  in  her  watchfulness  over  our  infancy,  nor  in  her  joy  and  pride 
at  our  ever-blooming  prosperity  and  swelling  power,  since  we  as 
sumed  an  independent  position. 

The  proposition  is  not  historically  true.  Our  ancestry  were  not 
all  of  English  origin.  They  were  of  Scotch,  Irish,  German,  French, 
and  of  Norman  descent  as  well  as  English.  In  short,  we  inherit  from 
every  branch  of  the  Caucasian  race.  It  has  been  our  aim  and  policy 
to  profit  by  their  example — to  reject  their  errors  and  follies— and  to 
retain,  imitate,  cultivate,  perpetuate  all  that  was  valuable  and  desir- 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLA.S.  67 

able.  So  far  as  any  portion  of  the  credit  may  be  due  to  England  and 
Englishmen — and  much  of  it  is — let  it  be  freely  awarded  and  recorded 
in  her  ancient  archives,  which  seem  to  have  been  long  since  forgotten 
by  her,  and  the  memory  of  which  her  present  policy  toward  us  is 
not  well  calculated  to  revive.  But,  that  the  senator  from  South 
Carolina,  in  view  of  our  present  position  and  of  his  location  in  this 
Confederacy,  should  indulge  in  glowing  and  eloquent  eulogiums  of 
England  for  the  blessings  and  benefits  she  has  conferred  and  is  still 
lavishing  upon  us,  and  urge  these  considerations  in  palliation  of  the 
wrongs  she  is  daily  perpetrating,  is  to  me  amazing.  He  speaks  in 
terms  of  delight  and  gratitude  of  the  copious  and  refreshing  streams 
which  English  literature  and  science  are  pouring  into  our  country 
and  diffusing  throughout  the  land.  Is  he  not  aware  that  nearly  every 
English  book  circulated  and  read  in  this  country  contains  lurking 
and  insidious  slanders  and  libels  upon  the  character  of  our  people 
and  the  institutions  and  policy  of  our  government  ?  Does  he  not  know 
that  abolitionism,  which  has  so  seriously  threatened  the  peace  and 
safety  of  this  republic,  had  its  origin  in  England,  and  has  been  in 
corporated  into  the  policy  of  that  government  for  the  purpose  of 
operating  upon  the  peculiar  institutions  of  some  of  the  States  of  this 
confederacy,  and  thus  render  the  Union  itself  insecure  ?  Does  she 
not  keep  her  missionaries  perambulating  this  country,  delivering 
lectures  and  scattering  broadcast  incendiary  publications,  designed 
to  incite  prejudices,  hate,  and  strife  between  the  different  sections 
of  this  Union  ?  Iliad  supposed  that  South  Carolina  and  the  other 
slaveholding  States  of  this  confederacy  had  been  suih1  ciently  refreshed 
and  enlightened  by  a  certain  species  of  English  literature,  designed 
to  stir  up  treason  and  insurrection  around  his  own  fireside,  to  have 
excused  the  senator  from  offering  up  praises  and  hosannas  to  our 
English  mother  !  (Applause  in  the  galleries.)  Is  not  the  heart,  in-- 
tellect,  and  press  of  England  this  moment  employed  in  flooding 
America  with  this  species  of  "  English  literature  ?"  Even  the  wives 
and  daughters  of  the  nobility  and  the  high  officers  of  government 
have  had  the  presumption  to  address  the  women  of  America,  and  in 
the  name  of  philanthropy  appeal  to  them  to  engage  in  the  treasonable 
plot  against  the  institutions  and  government  of  their  own  choice  in 
their  native  land,  while  millions  are  being  expended  to  distribute 
"•  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin"  throughout  the  world,  with  the  view  of  com 
bining  the  fanaticism,  ignorance,  and  hatred  of  all  the  nations  of  the 
earth  in  a  common  crusade  against  the  peculiar  institutions  of  the 
State  and  section  of  this  Union  represented  by  the  senator  from 
South  Carolina;  and  he  unwittingly  encourages  it^by  giving  vent  to 
his  rapturous  joy  over  these  copious  and  refreshing  streams  wit.li 
winch  England  is  irrigating  the  American  intellect.  (Renewed  ap 
plause  in  the  galleries.) 

THE  PKESID.IXG  OFFICER  (Mi*.  RUSK  in  the  chair). — There  must  be 
order  in  the  galleries.  If  there  is  not,  they  will  be  ordered  to  be 
cleared. 


G8  THE     LIFE     AND      SPEECHES     OF 

MR.  ADAMS. — I  desire  to  ask  that  the  galleries  may  be  cleared  if 
such  an  outrage  occurs  again. 

MR.  DOUGLAS. — I  hope  it  will  be  done.  It  is  manifestly  improper 
to  have  such  proceedings  in  the  galleries. 

THE  PRESIDING  OFFICER. — It  certainly  will  be  done,  if  the  same 
thing  occurs  again. 

MR.  BUTLER. — I  have  but  one  word  to  say  in  reply  to  the  senator 
from  Illinois.  When  I  spoke  of  our  gratitude  to  England,  I  did  not 
allude  to  the  sentimental  kind  of  literature  to  which  the  senator  re 
fers.  I  thought  I  indicated  the  authors  of  the  literature  to  which  I 
referred ;  and  I  do  not  thank  the  senator  for  going  out  of  his  way, 
and  indicating  impure  streams,  as  if  they  had  a  connection  with  my 
remark,  for  there  are  impure  streams  llowing  from  other  sources  be 
sides  Great  Britain ;  and  there  are  impure  examples  in  other  parts 
of  the  Avorld  besides  Great  Britain.  When  I  spoke  of  it,  I  spoke  in 
emphatic  terms  of  those  writers  who  have  poured  upon  us  what  the 
senator  himself  will  not  deny  to  be  refreshing  streams  ;  what  I  hope 
he  will  regard  as  refreshing  to  him,  and  to  the  intelligence  of  the 
age.  I  named  authors.  Will  he  dissent  from  Burke  ?  Will  he  dis 
sent  from  Chatham  ?  Will  he  dissent  from  Shakspeare  ?  Will  he 


pect  to  be  diverted  by 
Cabin."  (Laughter.)  That  may  do  for  an  ad  captandum,  but  it  is 
not  a  manly  mode  of  meeting  what  I  said  in  relation  to  the  literature 
of  England. 

MR.  DOUGLAS. — I  spoke  in  terms  of  reverence  and  respect  of  the 
monuments  and  tombstones  which  were  found  in  England,  to  the 
great  men,  to  their  patriotism,  to  their  legal  learning  and  science 
and  poetry,  and  all  that  was  great  and  noble  and  admirable.  I  spoke 
of  them  with  respect  as  a  matter  of  the  past ;  but,  sir,  I  do  not  think 
it  was  a  legitimate  argument  to  go  back  two  or  three  centuries  past 
to  justify  English  aggressions  in  the  present  upon  this  continent ; 
and  when  I  heard  the  laudations  and  eulogiums  upon  past  English 
history  in  palliation  of  present  English  enormity,  with  commenda 
tions  upon  the  refreshing  streams  which  she  is  now  pouring  into  this 
country  to  enlighten  our  people,  I  thought  it  was  right  and  proper  to 
remind  the  senator  himself  of  some  of  the  present  conduct  of 
England,  which  should  be  borne  in  mind  when  he  pronounced 
eulogies  upon  her  conduct.  I  am  talking  of  the  present  and  its 
bearing  upon  the  future.  It  is  that  to  which  I  am  directing  my 
remarks,  and  not  to  the  past. 

MR.  BUTLER. — I  should  like  to  know  how  England  is  to  be  re 
sponsible  for  "  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin."  Is  England  the  indorser  of  it? 
I  have  alluded  to  the  masterly  intellects  of  England,  and  not  to  the 
spurious,  miserable,  sickly  sentimentality  of  the  day.  If  such  litera 
ture  as  that  to  which  he  alludes  is  to  be  taken  as  a  standard,  England 


STEPHEN     A.DOUGLAS.  69 

is  not  the  only  place  in  which  it  is  found.  She  is  no  more  responsi 
ble  for  that  miserable  cant  in  relation  to  this  subject  than  others. 
But  with  regard  to  England,  in  all  our  commercial  relations,  in  all 
our  connection  with  her  as  a  civilized  nation,  I  presume  the  honor 
able  senator  would  not  be  disposed  to  postpone  her  to  any  other 
any  other  nation. 

ME.  DOUGLAS. — I  would  neither  postpone  nor  give  her  the  prefer 
ence.  I  have  no  eulogium  to  make  upon  her.  I  will  treat  her  as  our 
duty  as  a  nation  requires. 

ME.  BUTLEE. — I  have  pronounced  no  other  eulogium  than  history 
yields  to  her  literature,  commerce  and  civilization,  and  we  are  bound 
to  maintain  our  relations  with  England  if  we  intend  to  be  a  civil 
ized  nation  ourselves.  I  made  no  allusion  to  the  kind  of  literature 
which  the  senator  has  brought  in  debate.  We  can  find  this  miserable 
sentimentality  anywhere,  and  there  are  many  other  things  which  the 
senator  might  as  well  have  brought  in,  which  would  have  been  as 
pertinent  to  the  debate.  He  had  better  get  up  a  discussion  of  the 
Maine  liquor  law.  (Laughter.)  I  do  not  see  why  he  could  not.  It 
has  about  as  much  connection  with  the  question  as  the  other. 

ME.  DOUGLAS. — I  have  introduced  into  this  discussion  none  of 
these  extraneous  topics.  I  have  contented  myself  with  replying 
when  others  have  brought  them  forward  and  thrust  them  upon  me. 
My  object  has  been  to  confine  the  debate  to  the  points  at  issue  be 
tween  the  senator  from  Delaware  and  myself,  and  I  have  not  de 
parted  from  that  line  except  when  compelled  to  do  so  by  the  remarks 
of  others. 


The  discussion  having  been  continued  on  subsequent  days 
by  Mr.  Clayton  and  Mr.  Everett,  Mr.  Douglas  closed  the 
debate  with  the  following  remarks  : 

ME.  PEESIDENT  :  I  do  not  intend  to  prolong  the  discussion  ;  but  I 
think  it  due  to  myself  and  the  occasion  to  make  a  word  of  comment 
upon  one  remark  which  fell  from  the  eminent  senator  from  Massa 
chusetts.  I  understood  him  to  concur  in  the  opinion  expressed  by 
the  senator  from  Delaware,  that  his  letter  in  relation  to  Cuba,  which 
proclaimed  the  principle  that  no  pledge  was  to  be  made  by  this  gov 
ernment  in  regard  to  the  future  condition  of  that  island,  was  not 
applicable  to  the  Central  American  states.  I  cannot  consent,  even 
for  the  sake  of  harmonizing  the  political  relations  of  those  two  sena 
tors,  to  be  placed  in  a  false  position.  I  am  not  willing,  even  by  their 
concurrence,  to  be  put  in  a  position  of  having  made  a  misapplication 
of  that  letter.  The  main  point  to  which  I  referred  in  the  letter  of 
Mr.  Everett  to  the  Comte  de  Sartiges  was  the  denial  of  any  consti 
tutional  power  in  this  government  to  make  the  pledge,  that  in  all 
coming  time  we  would  not  acquire  any  territory  which,  in  the  course 


70  THE     LIFE      4.ND     SPEECHES     OF 

of  events,  might  become  desirable  and  necessary.  If  it  was  not  com 
petent  under  the  Constitution  to  make  such  a  stipulation  in  reference 
to  the  island  of  Cuba,  where  does  he  find  the  constitutional  authority 
to  make  it  in  the  Clayton  and  Bulwer  treaty  in  respect  to  Central 
America  ?  If  there  be  a  want  of  constitutional  power  in  the  one 
case,  does  not  the  same  absence  of  authority  exist  in  the  other,  and 
should  it  not  be  equally  binding  upon  the  consciences  of  men  in  a]l 
cases  ?  Therefore,  until  they  remove  that  constitutional  barrier,  I 
cannot  permit  those  two  senators  to  place  themselves  upon  a  com 
mon  platform,  and  accuse  me  of  having  made  a  misapplication  of 
the  letter  to  the  French  minister.  The  senator  from  Delaware  has 
asserted  the  existence  of  the  power,  and  exercised  it  in  the  Clayton 
and  Bulwer  treaty,  while  the  senator  from  Massachusetts  has  denied 
its  existence  in  the  official  dispatch  to  which  I  have  referred.  That 
is  all  I  desired  to  say  on  that  point.  -> 

So  far  as  the  senator's  remarks  relate  to  the  preservation  ofpbacej 
I  fully  and  cordially  agree  with  him.  If  there  is  any  one  line  of 
policy  more  dear  to  my  heart  than  all  others,  it  is  that  which  shall 
avoid  any  just  cause  of  war,  and  preserve  peace  in  all  time  to  come. 
If  there  be  a  difference  of  opinion  between  us,  it  is  upon  the  point  as 
to  which  line  of  policy  will  best  accomplish  that  object.  I  believe 
that  the  true  policy  is  to  make  no  pledges  at  present  which  are  to 
bind  our  successors  in  all  time  to  come  with  reference  to  a  state  of 
facts  which  now  does  not  exist,  but  then  may  require  action.  I  have 
not  said  that  I  wish  to  annex  any  portion  of  Central  America  to  this 
country.  I  only  protest  against  the  pledge  that  our  successors  shall 
not  do  that  which  their  interest,  duty  and  honor  may  require  when 
the  time  for  action  comes.  With  these  remarks,  I  am  willing  to 
close  the  discussion. 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  71 

ON    THE    NEBRASKA    TERRITORY. 

Delivered  in  the  Senate,  January  30,  1854. 

^  The  Senate,  as  in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  proceeded  to  the  con 
sideration  of  the  bill  to  organize  the  Territory  of  Nebraska. 

ME.  DOUGLAS. — Mr.  President,  when  I  proposed,  on  Tuesday  last, 
that  the  Senate  should  proceed  to  the  consideration  of  the  bill  to  or 
ganize  the  Territories  of  Nebraska  and  Kansas,  it  was  my  purpose 
only  to  occupy  ten  or  fifteen  minutes  in  explanation  of  its  pro  visions. 
I  desired  to  refer  to  two  points  ;  first  to  those  provisions  relating  to 
the  Indians,  and  second  to  those  which  might  be  supposed  to  bear 
upon  ^M  question  of  slavery. 

Th<rcommittee,  in  drafting  the  bill,  had  in  view  the  great  anxiety 
which  had  been  expressed  by  some  members  of  the  Senate  to  protect 
the  rights  of  the  Indians,  and  to  prevent  infringements  upon  them. 
By  the  provisions  of  the  bill,  I  think  we  had  so  clearly  succeeded,  in 
that  respect,  as  to  obviate  all  possible  objection  upon  that  score.  The 
bill  itself  provides  that  it  shall  not  operate  upon  any  of  the  rights  or 
lands  of  the  Indians,  nor  shall  they  be  included  within  the  limits  of 
those  Territories,  until  they  shall,  by  treaty  with  the  United  States, 
expressly  consent  to  come  under  the  operations  of  the  act,  and  be 
incorporated  within  the  limits  of  the  Territories.  This  provision  cer 
tainly  is  broad  enough,  clear  enough,  explicit  enough,  to  protect  all 
the  rights  of  the  Indians  as  to  their  persons  and  their  property. 

Upon  the  other  point,  that  pertaining  to  the  question  of  slavery  in 
the  Territories,  it  was  the  intention  of  the  committee  to  be  equally 
explicit.  We  took  the  principles  established  by  the  Compromise  acts 
of  1850  as  our  guide,  and  intended  to  make  each  and  every  provision 
of  the  bill  accord  with  those  principles.  Those  measures  established 
and  rest  upon  the  principles  of  self-government,  that  the  people 
should  be  allowed  to  decide  the  question  of  their  domestic  institu 
tions  for  themselves,  subject  only  to  such  limitations  and  restrictions 
as  are  imposed  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  instead  of 
having  them  determined  by  an  arbitrary  or  geographical  line. 

The  original  bill,  reported  by  the  committee  as  a  substitute  for  the 
bill  introduced  by  the  senator  from  Iowa  (Mr.  Dogde),  was  believed  • 
to  have  accomplished  this  object.  The  amendment  which  was  sub 
sequently  reported  by  us  was  only  designed  to  render  that  clear  and 
specific,  which  seemed,  in  the  minds  of  some,  to  admit  of  doubt  and 
misconstruction.  In  some  parts  of  the  country  the  original  substi 
tute  was  deemed  and  construed  to  be  an  annulment  or  a  repeal  of 
what  has  been  known  as  the  Missouri  Compromise,  while  in  other 
parts  it  was  otherwise  construed.  As  the  object  of  the  committee 
was  to  conform  to  the  principles  established  by  the  Compromise 
measures  of  1850,  and  to  carry  those  principles  into  effect  in  the 


72  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

Territories,  we  thought  it  was  better  to  recite  in  the  hill  precisely 
what  we  understood  to  have  heen  accomplished  by  those  measures, 
viz.,  that  the  Missouri  Compromise,  having  been  superseded  by  the 
legislation  of  1850,  has  become  and  ought  to  be  declared  inoperative  ; 
and  hence  we  propose  to  leave  the  question  to  the  people  of  the 
States  and  the  Territories,  subject  only  to  the  limitations  and  provi 
sions  of  the  Constitution. 

Sir,  this  is  all  that  I  intended  to  say,  if  the  question  had  been 
taken  up  for  consideration  on  Tuesday  last;  but  since  that  time  oc 
currences  have  transpired  which  compel  me  to  go  more  fully  into 
the  discussion.  It  will  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  senator  from  Ohio 
(Mr.  Chase)  then  objected  to  the  consideration  of  the  bill,  and 
asked  for  its  postponement  until  this  day,  on  the  ground  that  there 
had  not  been  time  to  understand  and  consider  its  provisions  ;  and 
the  senator  from  Massachusetts  (Mr.  Sumner)  suggested  that  the 
postponement  should  be  for  one  week  for  that  purpose.  These  sug 
gestions  seeming  to  be  reasonable,  in  the  opinions  of  senators 
around  me,  I  yielded  to  their  request,  and  consented  to  the  post 
ponement  of  the  bill  until  this  day. 

Sir,  little  did  I  suppose,  at  the  time  that  I  granted  that  act  of 
courtesy  to  those  two  senators,  that  they  had  drafted  and  published 
to  the  world  a  document,  over  their  own  signatures,  in  which  they 
arraigned  me  as  having  been  guilty  of  a  criminal  betrayal  of  my 
trust,  as  having  been  guilty  of  an  act  of  bad  faith  and  been  engaged 
in  an  atrocious  plot  against  the  cause  of  free  government.  Little 
did  I  suppose  that  these  two  senators  had  been  guilty  of  such  con 
duct  when  they  called  upon  me  to  grant  that  courtesy,  to  give  them 
an  opportunity  of  investigating  the  substitute  reported  by  the  com 
mittee.  I  have  since  discovered  that  on  that  very  morning  the  "  Na- 
tionel  Era,"  the  abolition  organ  in  this  city,  contained  an  address, 
signed  by  certain  abolition  confederates,  to  the  people,  in  which  the 
bill  is  grossly  misrepresented,  in  which  the  action  of  the  committee 
is  grossly  perverted,  in  winch  our  motives  are  arraigned  and  our 
characters  calumniated.  And,  sir,  what  is  more,  I  find  that  there 
was  a  postscript  added  to. the  address,  published  that  very  morning, 
in  which  the  principal  amendment  reported  by  the  committee  was 
set  out,  and  then  coarse  epithets  applied  to  me  by  name.  Sir,  had 
I  known  those  facts  at  the  time  that  I  granted  that  act  of  indulgence, 
I  should  have  responded  to  the  reque.-t  of  those  senators  in  such 
terms  a^  their  conduct  deserved,  so  far  as  the  rules  of  the  Senate  arid 
a  respect  for  my  own  character  would  have  permitted  me  to  do.  In 
order  to  show  the  character  of  this  document,  of  which  I  shall  havo 
much  to  say  in  the  course  of  ray  argument,  I  will  read  certain  pas 
sages  : 

'•  We  arraign  this  bill  as  a  gross  violation  of  a  sacred  pledge  ;  as  a  criminal 
betrayal  of  precious  rights  :  as  part  and  parcel  of  an  atrocious  plot  to  exclude 
froma  vast  unoccupied  region  emigrants  from  the  Old  World,  and  free  laborers 
from  our  own  States,  and  convert  it  into  a  dreary  region  of  despotism,  inhabited 
by  masters  and  slaves." 


STEPHEN     A.DOUGLAS.  7o 

A  SENATOR. — By  whom  is  the  address  signed  ? 

ME.  DOUGLAS. — It  is  signed  "  S.  P.  Chase,  senator  from  Ohio  ; 
Charles  Sumner,  senator  from  Massschusetts ;  J.  R.  Giddings  and 
Edward  Wade,  representatives  from  Ohio  ;  Gerrit  Smith,  represen 
tative  from  New  York;  Alexander  De  Witt,  representative  from 
Massachusetts;"  including,  as  I  understand,  all  the  abolition  party  in 
Congress. 

Then,  speaking  of  the  Committee  on  Territories,  these  confederates 
use  this  language  : 

"  The  pretences,  therefore,  that  the  Territory,  covered  by  the  positive  prohi 
bition  of  1820,  sustains  a  similar  relation  to  slavery  with  that  acquired  from 
Mexico,  covered  by  no  prohibition  except  that  of  disputed  constitutional  or 
Mexican  law,  and  that  the  compromises  of  1850  require  the  incorporation  of 
the  pro-slavery  clauses  of  the  Utah  and  New  Mexico  Bill  in  the  Nebraska  Act, 
are  mere  inventions,  designed  to  cover  up  from  public  reprehension  meditated  bad 
faith." 

"Mere  inventions  to  cover  up  bad  faith."    Again: 

;'  Servile  demagogues  may  tell  you  that  the  Union  can  be  maintained  only 
by  submitting  to  the  demands  of  slavery." 

Then  there  is  a  postscript  added,  equally  offensive  to  myself,  in 
which  I  am  mentioned  by  name.  The  address  goes  on  to  make  an 
appeal  to  the  legislatures  of  the  different  States,  to  public  meetings, 
and  to  ministers  of  the  Gospel  in  their  pulpits,  to  interpose  and 
arrest  the  vile  proceeding  which  is  about  to  be  consummated  by 
the  senators  who  are  thus  denounced.  That  address,  sir,  bears  date 
Sunday,  January  22,  1854.  Thus  it  appears  that,  on  the  holy  Sab 
bath,  while  other  senators  were  engaged  in  divine  worship,  these 
abolition  confederates  were  assembled  in  secret  conclave,  plotting  by 
what  means  they  should  deceive  the  people  of  the  United  States,  and 
prostrate  the  character  of  brother  senators.  This  was  done  on  the 
Sabbath  day,  and  by  a  set  of  politicians,  to  advance  their  own  po 
litical  and  ambitious  purposes,  in  the  name  of  our  holy  religion. 

But  this  is  not  all.  It  was  understood  from  newspapers  that  reso 
lutions  were  pending  before  the  legislature  of  Ohio  proposing  to 
express  their  opinions  upon  this  subject.  It  was  necessary  for  these 
confederates  to  get  up  some  exposition  of  the  question  by  which  they 
mio-ht  facilitate  the  passage  of  the  resolutions  through  that  legisla 
ture  Hence  you  find  that,  on  the  same  morning  that  this  document 
appears  over  the  names  of  these  confederates  in  the  abolition  organ 
of  this  city,  the  same  document  appears  in  the  New  York  papers— 
certainly  in  the  "Tribune,"  "Times"  and  "Evening  Post"— in 
which  it  is  stated,  by  authority,  that  it  is  "  signed  by  the  senators 
and  a  majority  of  the  representatives  from  the  State  of  Ohio  —a 
statement  which  I  have  every  reason  to  believe  was  utterly  false,  and 
known  to  be  so  at  the  time  that  these  confederates  appended  it  to 
the  address.  It  was  necessary,  in  order  to  carry  out  this  work  ot 

4 


74  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES      OF 

deception,  and  to  hasten  the  action  of  the  Ohio  legislature,  nnder  a 
misapprehension  of  the  real  facts,  to  state  that  it  was  signed,  not 
only  by  the  abolition  confederates,  but  by  the  whole  Whig  repre 
sentation,  and  a  portion  of  the  Democratic  representation  in  the  other 
house  from  the  State  of  Ohio. 

MR.  CHASE. — Mr.  President 

MR.  DOUGLAS. — Mr.  President,  I  do  not  yield  the  floor.  A  senator 
who  has  violated  ail  the  rules  of  courtesy  and  propriety,  who  showed 
a  consciousness  of  the  character  of  the  act  he  was  doing  by  conceal 
ing  from  me  all  knowledge  of  the  fact — who  came  to  me  with  a 
smiling  face,  and  the  appearance  of  friendship,  even  after  that  docu 
ment  had  been  uttered — who  could  get  up  in  the  Senate  and  appeal 
to  my  courtesy  in  order  to  get  time  to  give  the  document  a  wider 
circulation  before  its  infamy  could  be  exposed;  such  a  senator  has 
no  right  to  my  courtesy  upon  this  floor. 

MR.  CHASE.  — Mr.  President,  the  senator  mistates  the  facts • 

MR.  DOUGLAS. — Mr.  President,  I  decline  to  yield  the  floor. 

MR.  CHASE. — And  I  shall  make  my  denial  pertinent  when  the  time 
comes. 

THE  PRESIDENT. — Order! 

MR.  DOUGLAS. — Sir,  if  the  senator  does  interpose,  in  violation  of 
the  rules  of  the  Senate,  a  denial  of  the  fact,  it  may  be  that  I  shall  bo 
able  to  nail  that  denial,  as  I  shall  the  statements  in  this  address 
which  are  over  his  own  signature,  as  a  wicked  fabrication,  and  prove 
it  by  the  solemn  legislation  of  this  country. 

MR.  CHASE. — 1  call  the  senator  to  order. 

THE  PRESIDENT. — The  senator  from  Illinois  is  certainly  out  of 
order. 

MR.  DOUGLAS. — Then  I  will  only  say  that  I  shall  confine  myself  to 
this  document,  and  prove  its  statements  to  be  false  by  the  legisla 
tion  of  the  country.  Certainly  that  is  in  order. 

MR.  CHASE. — You  cannot  do  it. 

MR.  DOUGLAS. — The  argument  of  this  manifesto  is  predicated  upon 
the  assumption  that  the  policy  of  the  fathers  of  the  republic  was  to 
prohibit  slavery  in  all  the  territory  ceded  by  the  old  States  to  the 
Union,  and  made  United  States  territory,  for  the  purpose  of  being 
organized  into  new  States.  I  take  issue  upon  that  statement.  Such 
was  not  the  practice  in  the  early  history  of  the  government.  It  is 
true  that  in  the  territory  northwest  of  the  Ohio  River  slavery  was 
prohibited  by  the  Ordinance  of  1787;  but  it  is  also  true  that  in  the 
territory  south  of  the  Ohio  River,  slavery  was  permitted  and  pro 
tected  ;  and  it  is  also  true  that  in  the  organization  of  the  Territory 
of  Mississippi,  in  1798,  the  provisions  of  the  Ordinance  of  1787  were 
applied  to  it,  with  the  exception  of  the  sixth  article,  which  prohibited 
slavery.  Then,  sir,  you  find  upon  the  statute-books  under  Washing 
ton  and  the  early  Presidents,  provisions  of  law  showing  that  in  the 
southwestern  territories  the  right  to  hold  slaves  was  clearly  implied 
or  recognized,  while  in  the  northwest  territories  it  was  prohibited. 


STEPHEN     A.DOUGLAS. 

The  only  conclusion  that  can  be  fairly  and  honestly  drawn  from  that 
legislation  is,  that  it  was  the  policy  of  the  fathers  of  the  republic  to 
prescribe  a  line  of  demarkation  between  free  Territories  and  slave- 
holding  Territories  by  a  natural  or  a  geographical  line,  being  sure  to 
make  that  line  correspond,  as  near  as  might  be,  to  the  laws  of  cli 
mate,  of  production,  and  all  those  other  causes  that  would  control 
the  institutions  and  make  it  either  desirable  or  undesirable  to  the 
people  inhabiting  the  respective  Territories. 

Sir,  I  wish  you  to  bear  in  mind,  too,  that  this  geographical  line, 
established  by  the  founders  of  the  republic  between  free  Territories 
and  slave  Territories,  extended  as  far  westward  as  our  territory  then 
reached ;  the  object  being  to  avoid  all  agitation  upon  the  slavery 
question  by  settling  that  question  forever,  as  far  as  our  territory 
extended,  which  was  then  to  the  Mississippi  Eiver. 

When,  in  1803,  we  acquired  from  France  the  territory  known  as 
Louisiana,  it  became  necessary  to  legislate  for  the  protection  of  the 
inhabitants  residing  therein.  It  will  be  seen,  by  looking  into  the 
bill  establishing  the  Territorial  government  in  1805  for  the  Territory 
of  New  Orleans,  embracing  the  same  country  now  known  as  the 
State  of  Louisiana,  that  the  Ordinance  of  1787  was  expressly  ex 
tended  to  that  Territory,  except  the  sixth  section,  which  prohibited 
slavery.  That  act  implied  that  the  Territory  of  New  Orleans  was 
to  be  a  slaveholding  Territory  by  making  that  exception  in  the  law. 
But,  sir,  when  they  carne  to  form  what  was  then  called  the  Territory 
of  Louisiana,  subsequently  known  as  the  Territory  of  Missouri, 
north  of  the  thirty-third  parallel,  they  used  different  language.  They 
did  not  extend  to  it  any  of  the  provisions  of  the  Ordinance  of  1787. 
They  first  provided  that  it  should  be  governed  by  laws  made  by  the 
governor  and  the  judges,  and,  when  in  1812  Congress  gave  to  that 
Territory,  under  the  name  of  the  Territory  of  Missouri,  a  Territorial 
government,  the  people  were  allowed  to  do  as  they  pleased  upon  the 
subject  of  slavery,  subject  only  to  the  limitations  of  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States.  Now  what  is  the  inference  from  that  legisla 
tion  ?  That  slavery  was,  by  implication,  recognized  south  of  the 
thirty-third  parallel ;  and  north  of  that  the  people  were  left  to  exer 
cise  "their  own  judgment  and  do  as  they  pleased  upon  the  subject, 
without  any  implication  for  or  against  the  existence  of  the  institu 
tion. 

This  continued  to  be  the  condition  of  the  country  in  the  Missouri 
Territory  up  to  1820,  when  the  celebrated  act  which  is  now  called 
the  Missouri  Compromise  was  passed.  Slavery  did  not  exist  in, 
nor  was  it  excluded  from,  the  country  now  known  as  Nebraska.  There 
was  no  code  of  laws  upon  the  subject  of  slavery  either  way  :  First, 
for  the  reason  that  slavery  had  never  been  introduced  into  Louisiana, 
and  established  by  positive  enactment.  It  had  grown  up  there  by  a 
sort  of  common  law,  and  been  supported  and  protected.  When  a 
common  law  grows  up,  when  an  institution  becomes  established 
under  a  usage,  it  carries  it  so  far  as  that  usage  actually  goes,  and  no 


76  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

further.  It'  it  had  been  established  by  direct  enactment,  it  might 
have  carried  it  so  far  as  the  political  jurisdiction  extended ;  but,  be 
that  as  it  may,  by  the  act  of  1812,  creating  the  Territory  of  Missouri, 
that  Territory  was  allowed  to  legislate  upon  the  subject  of  slavery 
as  it  saw  proper,  subject  only  to  the  limitations  which  I  have  stated  ; 
and  the  country  not  inhabited  or  thrown  open  to  settlement  was  set 
apart  as  Indian  country,  and  rendered  subject  to  Indian  laws. 
Hence,  the  local  legislation  of  the  State  of  Missouri  did  not  reach 
into  that  Indian  country,  but  was  excluded  from  it  by  the  Indian 
code  and  Indian  laws.  The  municipal  regulations  of  Missouri  could 
not  go  there  until  the  Indian  title  had  been  extinguished,  and  the 
country  thrown  open  to  settlement.  Such  being  the  case,  the  only 
legislation  in  existence  in  Nebraska  Territory  at  the  time  that  the 
Missouri  act  passed,  namely,  the  Gth  of  March,  1820,  was  a  provision, 
in  effect,  that  the  people  should  be  allowed  to  do  as  they  pleased 
upon  the  subject  of  slavery. 

The  Territory  of  Missouri  having  been  left  in  that  legal  condition, 
positive  opposition  was  made  to  the  bill  to  organize  a  State  govern 
ment,  with  a  view  to  its  admission  into  the  Union  ;  and  a  senator 
from  my  State,  Mr.  Jesse  B.  Thomas,  introduced  an  amendment, 
known  as  the  eighth  section  of  the  bill,  in  which  it  was  provided  that 
slavery  should  be  prohibited  north  of  36°  30'  north  latitude,  in  all  the 
country  which  we  had  acquired  from  France.  What  was  the  object 
of  the  enactment  of  that  eighth  section?  Was  it  not  to  go  back  to 
the  original  policy  of  prescribing  boundaries  to  the  limitation  of  free 
institutions,  and  of  slave  institutions,  by  a  geographical  line,  in  order 
to  avoid  all  controversy  in  Congress  upon  the  subject?  Hence  they 
extended  that  geographical  line  through  all  the  territory  purchased 
from  France,  which  was  as  far  as  our  possessions  then  reached.  It 
was  not  simply  to  settle  the  question  on  that  piece  of  country,  but  it 
was  to  carry  out  a  great  principle,  by  extending  that  dividing  line 
as  far  west  as  our  territory  went,  and  running  it  onward  on  each 
new  acquisition  of  territory.  True,  the  express  enactment  of  the 
eighth  section  of  the  Missouri  act,  now  called  the  Missouri  Compro 
mise,  only  covered  the  territory  acquired  from  France ;  but  the 
principles  of  the  act,  the  objects  of  its  adoption,  the  reasons  in  its 
support,  required  that  it  should  be  extended  indefinitely  westward, 
so  far  as  our  territory  might  go,  whenever  new  purchases  should  be 
made. 

Thus  stood  the  question  up  to  1845,  when  the  joint  resolution  for 
the  annexation  of  Texas  passed.  There  was  inserted  in  that  joint  re 
solution  a  provision,  suggested  in  the  first  instance  and  brought  be 
fore  the  House  of  Representatives  by  myself,  extending  the  Missouri 
Compromise  line  indefinitely  westward  through  the  Territory  of 
Texas.  Why  did  I  bring  forward  that  proposition  ?  Why  did  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States  adopt  it?  ]STot  because  it  was  of  the 
least  practical  importance,  so  far  as  the  question  of  slavery  within 
the  limits  of  Texas  was  concerned ;  for  no  man  ever  dreamed  that  it 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  YY 

had  any  practical  effect  there.  Then  why  was  it  brought  forward  ? 
It  was  for  the  purpose  of  preserving  the  principle,  in  order  that  it 
might  be  extended  still  further  westward,  even  to  the  Pacific  Ocean, 
whenever  we  should  acquire  the  country  that  far.  I  will  here  read 
that  clause.  It  is  the  third  article,  second  section,  and  is  in  these 
words : 

"  New  States,  of  convenient  size,  not  exceeding  four  in  number,  in  addition 
to  said  State  of  Texas  having  sufficient  population,  may  hereafter,  by  the  con 
sent  of  said  State,  be  formed  out  of  the  territory  thereof,  which  shall  be  entitled 
to  admission  under  the  provisions  of  the  federal  Constitution.  And  such  States 
as  may  be  formed  out  of  that  portion  of  said  Territory  lying  south  of  thirty-six 
degrees  thirty  minutes  north  latitude,  commonly  known  as  the  Missouri  Com 
promise  line,  shall  be  admitted  into  the  Union,  with  or  without  slavery,  as  the 
people  of  each  State  asking  admission  may  desire.  And,  in  such  State  or 
States  as  shall  be  formed  out  of  said  Territory  north  of  said  Missouri  Compro 
mise  line,  slavery  or  involuntary  servitude  (except  for  crime)  shall  be  pro 
hibited." 

It  will  be  seen  that  it 'contains  a  very  remarkable  provision,  which 
is,  that  when  States  lying  north  of  36°  30'  apply  for  admission, 
slavery  shall  be  prohibited  in  their  constitutions.  I  presume  no  one 
pretends  that  Congress  could  have  power  thus  to  fetter  a  State  ap 
plying  for  admission  into  this  Union  ;  but  it  was  necessary  to  pre 
serve  the  principle  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  line,  in  order  that  it 
might  afterward  be  extended ;  and  it  was  supposed  that  while  Con 
gress  had  no  power  to  impose  any  such  limitation,  yet,  as  that  was  a 
compact  with  the  State  of  Texas,  that  State  could  consent  for  her 
self  that,  when  any  portion  of  her  own  Territory,  subject  to  her  own 
jurisdiction  and  control,  applied  for  admission,  her  constitution 
should  be  in  a  particular  form ;  but  that  provision  would  not  bo 
binding  on  the  new  State  one  day  after  it  was  admitted  into  the 
Union.  The  other  provision  was  that  such  States  as  should  lie  south 
of  36°  30'  should  come  into  the  Union  with  or  without  slavery,  as 
each  should  decide  in  its  constitution.  Then,  by  that  act,  the 
Missouri  Compromise  was  extended  indefinitely  westward,  so  far  as 
the  State  of  Texas  went,  that  is,  to  the  Rio  del  Norte ;  for  our  Gov 
ernment  at  that  time  recognized  the  Rio  del  JSTorte  as  its  boundary. 
We  recognized,  in  many  ways,  and  among  them  by  even  paying 
Texas  for  it  ten  millions  of  dollars,  in  order  that  it  might  be  in 
cluded  in  and  form  a  portion  of  the  Territory  of  New  Mexico. 

Then,  sir,  in  1848,  we  acquired  from  Mexico  the  country  between 
the  Rio  del  ISTorte  and  the  Pacific  Ocean.  Immediately  after  that  ac 
quisition,  the  Senate,  on  my  own  motion,  voted  into  a  bill  a  provi 
sion  to  extend  the  Missouri  Compromise  indefinitely  westward  to  the 
Pacific  Ocean,  in  the  same  sense  and  with  the  same  understanding 
with  which  it  was  originally  adopted.  That  provision  passed  this 
body  by  a  decided  majority,  I  think  by  ten  at  least,  and  went  to  the 
House  of  Representatives,  and  was  defeated  there  by  northern  votes. 

Novr,  si",  let  us  pause  and  consider  for  a  moment.     The  first  time 


78  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

that  the  principles  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  were  ever  abandoned, 
the  first  time  they  were  ever  rejected  by  Congress,  was  by  the  defeat 
of  that  provision  in  the  House  of  Representatives  in  1848.  By 
whom  was  that  defeat  effected?  By  northern  votes  with  Freesoil 
proclivities.  It  was  the  defeat  of  that  Missouri  Compromise  that 
reopened  the  slavery  agitation  with  all  its  fury.  It  was  the  defeat 
of  that  Missouri  Compromise  that  created  the  tremendous  struggle 
of  1850.  It  was  the  defeat  of  that  Missouri  Compromise  that 
created  the  necessity  for  making  a  new  compromise  in  1850.  Had 
we  been  faithful  to  the  principles  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  in 
1848,  this  question  would  not  have  arisen.  Who  was  it  that  was 
faithless  ?  I  undertake  to  say  it  was  the  very  men  who  now  insist 
that  the  Missouri  Compromise  was  a  solemn  compact,  and  should 
never  be  violated  or  departed  from.  Every  man  who  is  now  assail 
ing  the  principle  of  the  bill  under  consideration,  so  far  as  I  am  ad 
vised,  was  opposed  to  the  Missouri  Compromise  in  1848.  The  very 
men  who  now  arraign  me  for  a  departure  from  the  Missouri  Com 
promise  are  the  men  who  successfully  violated  it,  repudiated  it,  and 
caused  it  to  be  superseded  by  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850. 
Sir,  it  is  with  rather  bad  grace  that  the  men  who  proved  faithless 
themselves,  should  charge  upon  me  and  others,  who  were  ever  faith 
ful,  the  responsibilities  and  consequences  of  their  own  treachery. 

Then,  sir,  as  I  before  remarked,  the  defeat  of  the  Missouri  Com 
promise  in  1848  having  created  the  necessity  for  the  establishment 
of  a  new  one  in  1850,  let  us  see  what  that  compromise  was. 

The  leading  feature  of  the  Compromise  of  1850  was  Congressional 
non-intervention  as  to  slavery  in  the  Territories ;  that  the  people  of 
the  Territories,  and  of  all  the  States,  were  to  be  allowed  to  do  as 
they  pleased  upon  the  subject  of  slavery,  subject  only  to  the  provi 
sions  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

That,  sir,  was  the  leading  feature  of  the  Compromise  measures  of 
1850.  Those  measures,  therefore,  abandoned  the  idea  of  a  geogra 
phical  line  as  the  boundary  between  free  States  and  slave  States ; 
abandoned  it  because  compelled  to  do  it  from  an  inability  to  main 
tain  it ;  and  in  lieu  of  that,  substituted  a  great  principle  of  self- 
government,  which  would  allow  the  people  to  do  as  they  thought 
proper.  Now  the  question  is,  when  that  new  compromise,  resting 
upon  that  great  fundamental  principle  of  freedom,  was  established, 
was  it  not  an  abandonment  of  the  old  one — the  geographical  line  ? 
Was  it  not  a  supersedure  of  the  old  one  within  the  very  language  of 
the  substitute  for  the  bill  which  is  now  under  consideration  ?  I  say 
it  did  supersede  it,  because  it  applied  its  provisions  as  well  to  the 
north  as  to  the  south  of  36°  30'.  It  established  a  principle  which, 
was  equally  applicable  to  the  country  north  as  well  as  south  of  the 
parallel  of  36°  30' — a  principle  of  universal  application.  The 
authors  of  this  abolition  manifesto  attempted  to  refute  this  pre 
sumption,  and  maintain  that  the  Compromise  of  1850  did  not  super 
sede  that  of  1820,  by  quoting  the  proviso  to  the  first  section  of  tin 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  TO 

act  to  establish  the  Texan  boundary,  and  create  the  Territory  of 
New  Mexico.  That  proviso  was  added,  by  way  of  amendment,  on 
motion  of  Mr.  Mason,  of  Virginia. 

I  repeat,  that  in  order  to  rebut  the  presumption,  as  I  before 
stated,  that  the  Missouri  Compromise  was  abandoned  and  super 
seded  by  the  principles  of  the  Compromise  of  1850,  these  confede 
rates  cite  the  following  amendment,  oifered  to  the  bill  to  establish 
the  boundary  of  Texas  and  create  the  Territory  of  New  Mexico  in 
1850: 

"Provided,  That  nothing  herein,  contained  shall  be  construed  to  impair  or 
qualify  anything  contained  in  the  third  article  of  the  second  section  of  the 
joint  resolution  for  annexing  Texas  to  the  United  States,  approved  March  1, 
1845,  either  as  regards  the  number  of  States  that  may  hereafter  be  formed  out 
of  the  States  of  Texas  or  otherwise." 

After  quoting  this  proviso,  they  make  the  following  statement, 
and  attempt  to  gain  credit  for  its  truth  by  suppressing  material  facts 
which  appear  upon  the  face  of  the  same  statute,  and  which,  if  pro 
duced,  would  conclusively  disprove  the  statement : 

"  It  is  solemnly  declared  in  the  very  compromise  acts,  '  that  nothing  herein 
contained  shall  be  construed  to  impair  or  qualify  the  prohibition  of  slavery  north 
of  thirty-six  degrees  thirty  minutes  ;'  and  yet,  in  the  face  of  this  declaration, 
that  sacred  prohibition  is  said  to  be  overthrown.  Can  presumption  further 
go?" 

I  will  now  proceed  to  show  that  presumption  could  notTgo  fur 
ther  than  is  exhibited  in  this  declaration. 

They  suppress  the  following  material  facts,  which,  if  produced, 
would  have  disproved  their  statement.  They  first  suppress  the  fact 
that  the  same  section  of  the  act  cuts  off  from  Texas,  and  cedes  to 
the  United  States  all  that  part  of  Texas  which  lies  north  of  36^  30'. 
They  then  suppress  the  further  fact  that  the  same  section  of  the 
law  cuts  off  from  Texas  a  large  tract  of  country  on  the  west,  more 
than  three  degrees  of  longitude,  and  adds  it  to  the  territory  of  the 
United  States.  They  then  suppress  the  further  fact  that  this  terri 
tory  thus  cut  off  from  Texas,  and  to  which  the  Missouri  Compromise 
line  applied,  was  incorporated  into  the  Territory  of  New  Mexico. 
And  then  what  was  done?  It  was  incorporated  into  that  lerntory 
with  this  clause : 

"  That,  when  admitted  as  a  State,  the  said  Territory,  or  any  portion  of  the 
same,  shall  be  received  into  the  Union  with  or  without  slavery,  as  their  con 
stitution  may  prescribe  at  the  time  of  its  adoption.' 

Yes  sir  the  very  bill  and  section  from  which  they  quote,  cuts  off 
all  that  part  of  Texas  which  was  to  be  free  by  the  Missouri  Compro 
mise,  together  with  some  on  the  south  side  of  the  line,  incorporates 
it  into  the  Territory  of  New  Mexico,  and  then  says  that  the  TWTI- 


80  THE     LIFE     AND      SPEECHES     OF 

tory,  and  every  portion  of  the  same,  shall  come  into  the  Union  with 
or  without  slavery,  as  it  sees  proper. 

What  else  does  it  do?  The  sixth  section  of  the  same  act  provides 
that  the  legislative  power  and  authority  of  this  said  Territory  of 
New  Mexico  shall  extend  to  all  rightful  subjects  of  legislation  con 
sistent  with  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  the  provisions 
of  the  act,  not  excepting  slavery.  Thus  the  New  Mexican  Bill, 
from  which  they  make  that  quotation,  contains  the  provision  that 
New  Mexico,  including  that  part  of  Texas  which  was  cut  off,  should 
come  into  the  Union  with  or  without  slavery,  as  it  saw  proper ;  and 
in  the  meantime  that  the  Territorial  legislature  should  have  all  the 
authority  over  the  subject  of  slavery  that  they  had  over  any  other 
subject,  restricted  only  by  the  limitation  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  and  the  provisions  of  the  act.  Now,  I  ask  those 
senators,  do  not  those  provisions  repeal  the  Missouri  Compromise, 
so  far  as  it  applied  to  the  country  cut  off  from  Texas  ?  Do  they  not 
annul  it?  Do  they  not  supersede  it?  If  they  do,  then  the  address 
which  has  been  put  forth  to  the  world  by  these  confederates  is  an 
atrocious  falsehood.  If  they  do  not,  then  what  do  they  mean  when 
they  charge  me  with  having,  in.  the  substitute  first  reported  from 
the  committee,  repealed  it,  with  having  annulled  it,  with  having 
violated  it,  when  I  only  copied  those  precise  words  ?  I  copied  the 
precise  words  into  my  bill,  as  reported  from  the  committee,  which 
were  contained  in  the  New  Mexico  Bill.  They  say  my  bill  annuls 
the  Missouri  Compromise.  If  it  does,  it  had  already  been  done  be 
fore  byHhe  act  of  1850;  for  these  words  were  copied  from  the  act 
of  1850. 

MR.  WADE. — "Why  did  you  do  it  over  again  ? 

ME.  DOUGLAS. — I  will  come  to  that  point  presently.  I  am  now 
dealing  with  the  truth  and  veracity  of  a  combination  of  men  who 
have  assembled  in  secret  caucus  upon  the  Sabbath  day,  to  arraign 
rny  conduct  and  belie  my  motives.  I  say,  therefore,  that  their 
manifesto  is  a  slander  either  way  ;  for  it  says  that  the  Missouri 
Compromise  was  not  superseded  by  the  measures  of  1850,  and  then 
it  says  that  the  same  words  in  my  bill  do  repeal  and  annul  it. 
They  must  be  adjudged  guilty  of  one  falsehood  in  order  to  sustain 
the  other  assertion. 

Now,  sir,  I  propose  to  go  a  little  further,  and  show  what  was  the 
real  meaning  of  the  amendment  of  the  senator  from  Virginia,  out 
of  which  these  gentlemen  have  manufactured  so  much  capital  in 
the  newspaper  press,  and  have  succeeded  by  that  misrepresentation 
in  procuring  an  expression  of  opinion  from  the  State  of  Ehode 
Island  in  opposition  to  this  bill.  1  will  state  what  its  meaning  is. 

Did  it  mean  that  the  States  north  of  36  J  30'  should  have  a  clause 
in  their  constitutions  prohibiting  slavery?  I  have  shown  that  it 
did  not  mean  that,  because  the  same  act  says  that  they  might  come 
in  with  slavery,  if  they  saw  proper.  I  say  it  could  not  mean  that 
lor  another  reason :  The  same  section  containing  that  proviso  cut 


STEPHEN     A.     DO  UGLA.S.  81 

off  all  that  part  of  Texas  north  of  36°  30',  and  hence  there  was 
nothing  for  it  to  operate  upon.  It  did  not,  therefore,  relate  to  the 
country  cut  off.  What  did  it  relate  to  ?  Why,  it  meant  simply 
this:  By  the  joint  resolution  of  1845,  Texas  was  annexed,  with  the 
right  to  form  four  additional  States  out  of  her  territory  ;  and  such 
States  as  were  south  of  36°  30'  were  to  come  in  with  or  without 
slavery,  as  they  saw  proper ;  and  in  such  State  or  States  as  were 
north  of  that  line,  slavery  should  be  prohibited.  When  we  had  cut 
off  all  north  of  36°  30',  and  thus  circumscribed  the  boundary  and 
diminished  the  territory  of  Texas,  the  question  arose,  how  many 
States  will  Texas  be  entitled  to  under  this  circumscribed  boundary. 
Certainly  not  four,  it  will  be  argued.  Why  ?  Because  the  original 
resolution  of  annexation  provided  that  one  of  the  States,  if  not 
more,  should  be  north  of  36°  30'.  It  would  leave  it,  then,  doubtful 
whether  Texas  was  entitled  to  two  or  three  additional  States  under 
the  circumscribed  boundary. 

In  order  to  put  that  matter  to  rest,  in  order  to  make  a  final  set 
tlement,  in  order  to  have  it  explicitly  understood  what  was  the 
meaning  of  Congress,  the  senator  from  Virginia  offered  the  amend 
ment  that  nothing  therein  contained  should  impair  that  provision, 
either  as  to  the  number  of  States  or  otherwise,  that  is,  that  Texas 
should  be  entitled  to  the  same  number  of  States  with  her  reduced 
boundaries  as  she  would  have  been  entitled  to  under  her  larger 
boundaries ;  and  those  States  shall  come  in  with  or  without  slavery, 
as  they  might  prefer,  being  all  south  of  36°  30',  and  nothing  to  im 
pair  that  right  shall  be  interred  from  the  passage  of  the  act.  Such, 
sir,  was  the  meaning  of  that  proposition.  Any  other  construction 
of  it  would  stultify  the  very  character  and  purpose  of"  its  mover, 
the  senator  from  Virginia.  Such,  then,  was  not  only  the  intent  of 
the  mover,  but  such  is  the  legal  effect  of  the  law;  and  I  say  that 
no  man,  after  reading  the  other  sections  of  the  bill,  those  to  which 
I  have  referred,  can  doubt  that  such  was  both  the  intent  and  the 
legal  effect  of  that  law. 

Then  I  submit  to  the  Senate  if  I  have  not  convicted  this  mani 
festo,  issued  by  the  abolition  confederates,  of  being  a  gross  falsifica 
tion  of  the  laws  of  the  land,  and  by  that  falsification  that  an 
erroneous  and  injurious  impression  has  been  created  upon  the  pub 
lic  mind.  I  am  sorry  to  be  compelled  to  indulge  in  language  of 
severity  ;  but  there  is  no  other  language  that  is  adequate  to  express 
the  indignation  with  which  I  see  this  attempt,  not  only  to  mislead 
the  public,  but  to  malign  my  character  by  deliberate  falsification  of 
the  public  statutes  and  the  public  records. 

In  order  to  give  greater  plausibility  to  the  falsification  of  the 
terms  of  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850,  the  confederates  also 
declare  in  their  manifesto  that  they  (the  Territorial  bills  for  the  or 
ganization  of  Utah  and  New  Mexico)  "applied  to  the  territory 
acquired  from  Mexico,  and  to  that  only.  They  were  intended  as  a 
bettlement  of  the  controversy  growing  out  of  that  acquisition,  nnd 

4* 


82  THE     LIFE     AND      SPEECHES     OF 

of  that  controversy  only.  They  must  stand  or  fall  by  their  own 
merits.1' 

I  submit  to  the  Senate  if  there  is  an  intelligent  man  in  America 
who  does  not  know  that  that  declaration  is  falsified  by  the  statute 
from  which  they  quoted.  They  say  that  the  provisions  of  that  bill 
was  confined  to  the  territory  acquired  from  Mexico,  when  the  very 
section  of  the  law  from  which  they  quoted  that  proviso  did  pur 
chase  a  part  of  that  very  territory  from  the  State  of  Texas.  And 
the  next  section  of  the  law  included  that  territory  in  the  Territory 
of  New  Mexico.  It  took  a  small  portion  also  of  the  old  Louisiana 
purchase,  and  added  that  to  the  Territory  of  New  Mexico,  and  made 
up  the  rest  out  of  the  Mexican  acquisitions.  Then,  sir,  your  statutes 
show,  when  applied  to  the  map  of  the  country,  that  the  Territory 
of  New  Mexico  was  composed  of  country  acquired  from  Mexico, 
and  also  of  territory  acquired  from  Texas,  and  of  territory  acquired 
from  France ;  and  yet  in  defiance  of  that  statute,  and  in  falsification 
of  its  terms,  we  are  told,  in  order  to  deceive  the  people,  that  the 
bills  were  confined  to  the  purchase  made  from  Mexico  alone ;  and 
in  order  to  give  it  greater  solemnity,  they  repeat  it  twice,  fearing 
that  it  would  not  be  believed  the  first  time.  What  is  more,  the 
Territory  of  Utah  was  not  confined  to  the  country  acquired  from 
Mexico.  That  Territory,  as  is  well  known  to  every  man  who  under 
stands  the  geography  of  the  country,  includes  a  large  tract  of  rich 
and  fertile  country,  acquired  from  France  in  1803,  and  to  which  the 
eighth  section  of  the  Missouri  Act  applied  in  1820.  If  these  con 
federates  do  not  know  to  what  country  I  allude,  I  only  reply  that 
they  should  have  known  before  they  uttered  the  falsehood,  and  im 
puted  a  crime  to  me. 

But  I  will  tell  you  to  what  country  I  allude.  By  the  treaty  of 
1819,  by  which  we  acquired  Florida  and  a  fixed  boundary  between 
the  United  States  and  Spain,  the  boundary  was  made  of  the  Arkan 
sas  River  to  its  source,  and  then  the  line  ran  due  north  of  the  source 
of  the  Arkansas  to  the  42d  parallel,  then  along  on  the  42d  parallel 
to  the  Pacific  Ocean.  That  line,  due  north  from  the  head  of  the 
Arkansas,  leaves  the  whole  middle  part,  described  in  such  glowing 
terms  by  Colonel  Fremont,  to  the  east  of  the  line,  and  hence  a  part 
of  the  Louisiana  purchase.  Yet,  inasmuch  as  that  middle  part  i.s 
drained  by  the  waters  flowing  into  the  Colorado,  when  we  formed 
the  territorial  -limits  of  Utah,  instead  of  running  that  air-line,  wo 
ran  along  the  ridge  of  the  mountains,  and  cut  off  that  part  from 
Nebraska,  or  from,  the  Louisiana  purchase,  and  included  it  within 
the  limits  of  the  Territory  of  Utah. 

Why  did  we  do  it?  Because  we  sought  for  a  natural  and  conve 
nient  boundary,  and  it  was  deemed  better  to  take  the  mountains  as 
a  boundary,  than  by  an  air-line  to  cut  the  valleys  on  one  side  of  the 
mountains,  and  annex  them  to  the  country  on  the  other  side.  And 
why  did  we  take  these  natural  boundaries,  setting  at  defiance  the 
old  boundaries  ?  The  simple  reason  was  that  so  long  as  we  acted 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  83 

upon  the  principle  of  settling  the  slave  question  by  a  geographical 
line,  so  long  we  observed  those  boundaries  strictly  and  rigidly ;  but 
when  that  was  abandoned,  in  consequence  of  the  action  of  free- 
soilers  and  abolitionists — when  it  was  superseded  by  the  Compromise 
measures  of  1850,  which  rested  upon  a  great  universal  principle — 
there  Avas  no  necessity  for  keeping  in  view  the  old  and  unnatural 
boundary.  For  that  reason,  in  making  the  new  Territories,  we 
formed  natural  boundaries,  irrespective  of  the  source  whence  our 
title  was  derived.  In  writing  these  bills  I  paid  no  attention  to  the 
fact  whether  the  title  was  acquired  from  Louisiana,  from  France,  or 
from  Mexico  ;  for  what  difference  did  it  make  ?  The  principle  which 
we  had  established  in  the  bill  would  apply  equally  well  to  either. 

In  fixing  those  boundaries,  I  paid  no  attention  to  the  fact  whether 
they  included  old  territory  or  new  territory — whether  the  country 
was  covered  by  the  Missouri  Compromise  or  not.  Why  ?  Because 
the  principles  established  in  the  bills  superseded  the  Missouri  Com 
promise.  For  that  reason  we  disregarded  the  old  boundaries ;  dis 
regarded  the  territory  to  which  it  applied,  and  disregarded  the 
source  from  whence  the  title  was  derived.  I  say,  therefore,  that  a 
close  examination  of  those  acts  clearly  establishes  the  fact  that  it 
was  the  intent,  as  well  as  the  legal  effect  of  the  Compromise  mea 
sures  of  1850,  to  supersede  the  Missouri  Compromise,  and  all  geo 
graphical  and  territorial  lines. 

Sir,  in  order  to  avoid  any  misconstruction,  I  will  state  more 
distinctly  what  my  precise  idea  is  upon  this  point.  So  far  as  the 
Utah  and  IsTew  Mexico  bills  included  the  territory  which  had  been 
subject  to  the  Missouri  Compromise  provision,  to  that  extent  they 
absolutely  annulled  the  Missouri  Compromise.  As  to  the  unor 
ganized  territory  not  covered  by  those  bills,  it  was  superseded  by 
the  principles  of  the  Compromise  of  1850.  We  all  know  that  the 
object  of  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850  was  to  establish  certain 
great  principles,  which  would  avoid  the  slavery  agitation  in  all  time 
to  come.  Was  it  our  object  simply  to  provide  for  a  temporary  evil? 
Was  it  our  object  to  heal  over  an  old  sore,  and  leave  it  to  break  out 
again?  Was  it  our  object  to  adopt  a  mere  miserable  expedient  to 
apply  to  that  territory,  and  to  that  alone,  and  leave  ourselves 
entirely  at  sea,  without  compass,  when  new  territory  was  acquired, 
or  new  territorial  organizations  were  to  be  made? 

Was  that  the  object  for  which  the  eminent  and  venerable  senator 
from  Kentucky  (Mr.  Clay)  came  here  and  sacrificed  even  his  last 
energies  upon  the  altar  of  his  country?  Was  that  the  object  for 
which  Webster,  Clay,  Cass,  and  all 'the  patriots  of  that  day,  strug 
gled  so  long  and  so  strenuously  ?  Was  it  merely  the  application  of 
a  temporary  expedient,  in  agreeing  to  stand  by  past  and  dead  legis 
lation,  that  the  Baltimore  platform  pledged  us  to  sustain  the  Com 
promise  of  1850  ?  Was  it  the  understanding  of  the  Whig  party, 
when  they  adopted  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850  as  an  article 
of  political  faith,  that  they  were  only  agreeing  to  that  which  wait 


S4:  THE     LIFE     AND      SPEECHES     OF 

past,  and  had  no  reference  to  the  future  ?  If  that  was  their  mean 
ing  ;  if  that  was  their  ohject,  they  palmed  off  an  atrocious  fraud 
upon  the  American  people.  Was  it  the  meaning  of  the  Democratic 
party,  when  we  pledged  ourselves  to  stand  by  the  Compromise  of 
1850,  that  we  spoke  only  of  the  past,  and  had  no  reference  to  the 
future  ?  If  so,  it  was  a  gross  deception.  When  we  pledged  our 
President  to  stand  by  the  Compromise  measures,  did  we  not  under 
stand  that  we  pledged  him  as  to  his  future  action?  Was  it  as  to  his 
past  conduct  ?  If  it  had  been  in  relation  to  past  conduct  only,  the 
pledge  would  have  been  untrue  as  to  a  very  large  portion  of  the 
Democratic  party.  Men  went  into  that  convention  who  had  been 
opposed  to  the  Compromise  measures — men  who  abhorred  those 
measures  when  they  were  pending — men  who  never  would  have 
voted  affirmatively  on  them.  But,  inasmuch  as  those  measures  had 
been  passed  and  the  country  had  acquiesced  in  them,  and  it  was  im 
portant  to  preserve  the  principle  in  order  to  avoid  agitation  in 
the  future,  these  men  said,  we  waive  our  past  objections,  and  we 
will  stand  by  you  and  with  you  in  carrying  out  these  principles  in 
the  future. 

Such  I  understand  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  two  great  parties  at 
Baltimore.  Such  I  understand  to  have  been  the  effect  of  their 
pledges.  If  they  did  not  mean  this,  they  meant  merely  to  adopt 
resolutions  which  were  never  to  be  carried  out,  and  which  were 
designed  to  mislead  and  deceive  the  people  for  the  mere  purpose  of 
carrying  an  election. 

I  hold,  then,-  that,  as  to  the  territory  covered  by  the  Utah  and 
New  Mexico  bills,  there  was  an  express  annulment  of  the  Missouri 
Compromise ;  and  as  to  all  the  other  unorganized  territories,  it  was 
superseded  by  the  principles  of  that  legislation,  and  we  are  bound  to 
apply  those  principles  to  the  organization  of  all  new  territories,  to 
all  which  we  now  own,  or  which  we  may  hereafter  acquire.  If  this 
construction  be  given,  it  makes  that  compromise  a  final  adjustment. 
No  other  construction  can  possibly  impart  finality  to  it.  By  any 
other  construction,  the  question  is  to  be  reopened  the  moment  you 
ratify  a  new  treaty  acquiring  an  inch  of  country  from  Mexico.  By 
any  other  construction,  you  reopen  the  issue  every  time  you  make 
a  new  Territorial  government.  But,  sir,  if  you  treat  the  Compro 
mise  measures  of  1850  in  the  light  of  great  principles,  sufficient  to 
remedy  temporary  evils,  at  the  same  time  that  they  prescribe  rules 
of  action  applicable  everywhere  in  all  time  to  come,  then  you  avoid 
the  agitation  forever,  if  you  observe  good  faith  to  the  provisions 
of  these  enactments,  and  the  principles  established  by  them. 

Mr.  President,  I  repeat  that,  so  far  as  the  question  of  slavery  is 
concerned,  there  is  nothing  in  the  bill  under  consideration  which 
does  not  carry  out  the  principle  of  the  Compromise  measures  of 
1850,  by  leaving  the  people  to  do  as  they  please,  subject  only  to  the 
provisions  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  If  that  princi 
ple  is  wrong,  the  bill  is  wrong.  If  that  principle  is  right,  the  bill  is 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  85 

right.  It  is  unnecessary  to  quiblle  about  phraseology  or  words ;  it 
is  not  the  mere  words,  the  mere  phraseology,  that  our  constituents 
wish  to  judge  by.  They  wish  to  know  the  legal  effect  of  our  legis 
lation. 

The  legal  effect  of  this  bill,  if  it  be  passed  as  reported  by  the 
Committee  on  Territories,  is  neither  to  legislate  slavery  into  these 
Territories  nor  out  of  them,  but  to  leave  the  people  to  do  as  they 
please,  under  the  provisions  and  subject  to  the  limitations  of  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States.  Why  should  not  this  principle 
prevail?  Why  should  any  man,  North  or  South,  object  to  it?  I 
will  especially  address  the  argument  to  my  own  section  of  country, 
and  ask  why  should  any  northern  man  object  to  this  principle  ?  If 
you  will  review  the  history  of  the  slavery  question  in  the  United 
States,  you  will  see  that  all  the  great  results  in  behalf  of  free  insti 
tutions  which  have  been  worked  out,  have  been  accomplished  by 
the  operation  of  this  principle,  and  by  it  alone. 

When  these  States  were  colonies  of  Great  Britain,  every  one  of 
them  was  a  slaveholding  province.  When  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  was  formed,  twelve  out  of  the  thirteen  were  slave- 
holding  States.  Since  that  time  six  of  those  States  have  become 
free.  How  has  this  been  effected  ?  Was  it  by  virtue  of  abolition 
agitation  in  Congress  ?  Was  it  in  obedience  to  the  dictates  of  the 
Federal  Government  ?  Not  at  all ;  but  they  have  become  free  States 
under  the  silent  but  sure  and  irresistible  working  of  that  great 
principle  of  self-government  which  teaches  every  people  to  do  that 
which  the  interests  of  themselves  and  their  posterity  morally  and 
pecuniarily  may  require. 

Under  the  operation  of  this  principle,  New  Hampshire  became 
free,  while  South  Carolina  continued  to  hold  slaves ;  Connecticut 
abolished  slavery,  while  Georgia  held  on  to  it ;  Khode  Island  aban 
doned  the  institution,  while  Maryland  preserved  it ;  New  York,  New 
Jersey  and  Pennsylvania  abolished  slavery,  while  Virginia,  North 
Carolina,  and  Kentucky  retained  it.  Did  they  do  it  at  your  bid 
ding  ?  Did  they  do  it  at  the  dictation  of  the  Federal  Government  ? 
Did  they  do  it  in  obedience  to  any  of  your  Wilmot  Provisoes  or  Ordi 
nances  of  '87?  Not  at  all;  they  did  it  by  virtue  of  their  rights  as 
freemen  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  to  establish  and 
abolish  such  institutions  as  they  thought  their  own  good  required. 

Let  me  ask  you,  where  have  you  succeeded  in  excluding  slavery 
by  an  act  of  Congress  from  one  inch  of  the  American  soil  ?  You 
may  tell  me  that  you  did  it  in  the  Northwest  Territory  by  the  Ordi 
nance  of  1787.  1  will  show  you  by  the  history  of  the  country  that 
you  did  not  accomplish  any  such  thing.  You  prohibited  slavery 
there  by  law,  but  you  did  not  exclude  it  in  fact.  .Illinois  was  a  part 
of  the  Northwest  Territory.  With  the  exception  of  a  few  French 
and  white  settlements,  it  was  a  vast  wilderness,  filled  with  hostile 
savages,  when  the  Ordinance  of  1787  was  adopted.  Yet,  sir,  when 
Illinois  was  organized  into  a  Territorial  government,  it  established 


86  THE     LIFE     AND      SPEECHES      OF 

and  protected  slavery,  and  maintained  it  in  spite  of  your  Ordinance 
and  in  defiance  of  its  express  prohibition.  It  is  a  curious  fact,  that, 
so  long  as  Congress  said  the  Territory  of  Illinois  should  not  have 
slavery,  she  actually  had  it ;  and  on  the  very  day  when  you  with 
drew  your  Congressional  prohibition  the  people  of  Illinois,  of  their 
own  free  will  and  accord,  provided  for  a  system  of  emancipation. 

Thus  you  did  not  succeed  in  Illinois  Territory  with  your  Ordinance 
or  your  Wilmot  Proviso,  because  the  people  there  regarded  it  as  an  in 
vasion  of  their  rights.  They  regarded  it  as  a  usurpation  on  the  part  of 
the  Federal  Government.  They  regarded  it  as  violative  of  the  great 
principles  of  self-government,  and  they  determined  that  they  would 
never  submit  even  to  have  freedom  so  long  as  you  forced  it  upon  them. 

Nor  must  it  be  said  that  slavery  was  abolished  in  the  constitution 
of  Illinois  in  order  to  be  admitted  into  the  Union  as  a  State,  in  com 
pliance  with  the  Ordinance  of  1787  ;  for  they  did  no  such  thing.  In 
the  Constitution  with  which  the  people  of  Illinois  were  admitted  into 
Union,  they  absolutely  violated,  disregarded,  and  repudiated  your 
Ordinance.  The  Ordinance  said  that  slavery  should  be  forever  pro 
hibited  in  that  country.  The  constitution  with  which  you  received 
them  into  the  Union  as  a  State  provided  that  all  slaves  then  in  the 
State  should  remain  slaves  for  life,  and  that  all  persons  born  of  slave 
parents  after  a  certain  day  should  be  free  at  a  certain  age,  and  that 
all  persons  born  in  the  State  after  a  certain  other  day,  should  be  free 
from  the  time  of  their  birth.  Thus  their  State  constitution,  as  well 
as  their  Territorial  legislation,  repudiated  your  Ordinance.  Illinois, 
therefore,  is  a  case  in  point  to  prove  that  whenever  you  have 
attempted  to  dictate  institutions  to  any  part  of  the  United  States, 
you  have  failed.  The  same  is  true,  tbough  not  to  the  same  extent, 
with  reference  to  the  Territory  of  Indiana,  where  there  were  many 
slaves  during  the  time  of  its  Territorial  existence,  and  I  believe  also 
there  were  a  few  in  the  Territory  of  Ohio. 

But,  sir,  these  abolition  confederates,  in  their  manifesto,  have  also 
referred  to  the  wonderful  results  of  their  policy  in  the  States  of  Iowa 
and  the  Territory  of  Minnesota.  Here,  again,  they  happen  to  be  in 
fault  as  to  the  laws  of  the  land.  The  act  to  organize  the  Territory 
of  Iowa  did  not  prohibit  slavery,  but  the  people  of  Iowa  were 
allowed  to  do  as  they  pleased  under  the  Territorial  government ;  for 
the  sixth  section  of  that  act  provided  that  the  legislative  authority 
should  extend  to  all  rightful  subjects  of  legislation  except  as  to 
the  disposition  of  the  public  lands,  and  taxes  in  certain  cases,  but 
not  excepting  slavery.  It  may,  however,  be  said  by  some  that 
slavery  was  prohibited  in  Iowa  by  virtue  of  that  clause  in  the  Iowa 
act  which  declared  the  laws  of  Wisconsin  to  be  in  force  therein,  in 
asmuch  as  the  Ordinance  of  1787"  was  one  of  the  laws  of  Wisconsin. 
If,  however,  they  say  this,  they  defeat  their  object,  because  the  very 
clause  which  transfers  the  laws  of  Wisconsin  to  Iowa,  and  makes 
them  of  force  therein,  also  provides  that  those  laws  are  subject  to  be 
altered,  modified,  or  repealed  by  the  Territorial  legislature  of  Iowa. 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  87 

Iowa,  therefore,  was  left  to  do  as  she  pleased.  Iowa,  when  she 
came  to  form  a  constitution  and  State  government,  preparatory  to 
admission  into  the  Union,  considered  the  subject  of  free  and  slave 
institutions  calmly,  dispassionately,  without  any  restraint  or  dicta 
tion,  and  determined  that  it  would  be  to  the  interest  of  her  people  in 
their  climate,  and  with  their  productions,  to  prohibit  slavery  ;  arid 
hence  Iowa  became  a  free  State  by  virtue  of  this  great  principle  of 
allowing  the  people  to  do  as  they  please,  and  not  in  obedience  to  any 
federal  command. 

The  abolitionists  are  also  in  the  habit  of  referring  to  Oregon  as 
another  instance  of  the  triumph  of  their  abolition  policy.  There 
again  they  have  overlooked  or  misrepresented  the  history  of  the 
country.  Sir,  it  is  well  known,  or  if  it  is  not,  it  ought  to  be,  that  for 
about  twelve  years  you  forgot  to  give  Oregon  any  government  or 
any  protection ;  and  during  that  period  the  inhabitants  of  that 
country  established  a  government  of  their  own,  and  by  virtue  of 
their  own  laws,  passed  by  their  own  representatives  before  you  ex 
tended  your  jurisdiction  over  them,  prohibited  slavery  by  a  unani 
mous  vote.  Slavery  was  prohibited  there  by  the  action  of  the  people 
themselves,  and  not  by  virtue  of  any  legislation  of  Congress. 

It  is  true  that,  in  the  midst  of  the  tornado  which  swept  over  the 
country  in  1848.  1849  and  1850,  a  provision  was  forced  into  the  Ore 
gon  bill  prohibiting  slavery  in  that  Territory ;  but  that  only  goes  to 
show  that  the  object  of  those  who  pressed  it  was  not  so  much  to 
establish  free  institutions  as  to  gain  a  political  advantage  by  giving 
an  ascendency  to  their  peculiar  doctrines  in  the  laws  of  the  land ; 
for  slavery  having  been  already  prohibited  there,  and  no  man  pro 
posing  to  establish  it,  what  was  the  necessity  for  insulting  the  people 
of  Oregon  by  saying  in  your  law  that  they  should  not  do  that  which 
they  had  unanimously  said  they  did  not  wish  to  do  ?  That  was  the 
only  effect  of  your  legislation  so  far  as  the  Territory  of  Oregon  was 
concerned. 

How  was  it  in  regard  to  California  ?  Every  one  of  these  abolition 
confederates,  who  have  thus  arraigned  me  and  the  Committee  on 
Territories  before  the  country,  and  have  misrepresented  our  position, 
predicted  that  unless  Congress  interposed  by  law,  and  prohibited 
slavery  in  California,  it  would  inevitably  become  a  slaveholding 
State.  Congress  did  not  interfere;  Congress  did  not  prohibit 
slavery.  There  was  no  enactment  upon  the  subject ;  but  the  people 
formed  a  State  constitution,  and  therein  prohibited  slavery. 

ME.  AVrELLEE. — The  vote  was  unanimous  in  the  convention  of  Cali 
fornia  for  prohibition. 

ME.  DOUGLAS. — So  it  was  in  regard  to  Utah  and  New  Mexico.  In 
1850,  we  who  resisted  any  attempt  to  force  institutions  upon  the 
people  of  those  Territories  inconsistent  with  their  wishes  and  their 
right  to  decide  for  themselves,  were  denounced  as  slavery  propagan 
dists.  Every  one  of  us  who  was  in  favor  of  the  Compromise  mea 
sures  of  1850  was  arraigned  for  having  advocated  a 


88  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES      OF 

ing  to  introduce  slavery  into  those  Territories,  and  the  people  were 
told,  and  made  to  believe,  that,  unless  we  prohibited  it  by  act  of 
Congress,  slavery  would  necessarily  and  inevitably  be  introduced 
into  these  Territories. 

"Well,  sir,  we  did  establish  the  Territorial  governments  of  Utah 
and  New  Mexico  without  any  prohibition.  We  gave  to  these  abo 
litionists  a  full  opportunity  of  proving  whether  their  predictions 
would  prove  true  or  false.  Years  have  rolled  round,  and  the  result 
is  before  us.  The  people  there  have  not  passed  any  law  recognizing, 
or  establishing,  or  introducing,  or  protecting  slavery  in  the  Terri 
tories. 

I  know  of  but  one  Territory  of  the  United  States  where  slavery 
does  exist,  and  that  one  is  where  you  have  prohibited  it  by  law  ; 
and  it  is  this  very  Nebraska  country.  In  defiance  of  the  eighth  sec 
tion  of  the  act  of  1820,  in  defiance  of  Congressional  dictation,  there 
have  been,  not  many,  but  a  few  slaves  introduced.  I  heard  a  minis 
ter  of  the  Gospel  the  other  day  conversing  with  a  member  of  the 
Committee  on  Territories  upon  this  subject.  This  preacher  was 
from  that  country,  and  a  member  put  this  question  to  him  :  "  Have 
you  any  negroes  out  there  ?"  He  said  there  were  a  few  held  by  the 
Indians.  1  asked  him  if  there  were  not  some  held  by  white  men  ? 
He  said  there  were  a  few  under  peculiar  circumstances,  and  he  gave 
an  instance.  An  abolition  missionary,  a  very  good  man,  had  gone 
there  from  Boston,  and  he  took  his  wife  with  him.  He  got  out  into 
the  country  but  could  not  get  any  help;  hence  he,  being  a  kind- 
hearted  man,  went  down  to  Missouri  and  gave  $1,000  for  a  negro, 
and  took  him  up  there  as  "help."  (Laughter.)  So,  under  peculiar 
circumstances,  when  these  freesoil  and  abolition  preachers  and  mis 
sionaries  go  into  the  country,  they  can  buy  a  negro  for  their  own 
use,  but  they  do  not  like  to  allow  any  one  else  to  do  the  same  thing. 
(Renewed  laughter.)  I  suppose  the  fact  of  the  matter  is  simply  this: 
there  the  people  can  get  no  servants — no  "help,"  as  they  are  called 
in  the  section  of  country  were  I  was  born — and  from  the  necessity  of 
the  case,  they  must  do  the  best  they  can,  and  for  this  reason  a  few 
slaves  have  been  taken  there.  I  have  no  doubt  that  whether  you 
organize  the  Territory  of  Nebraska  or  not,  this  will  continue  for 
some  little  time  to  come.  It  certainly  does  exist,  and  it  will  in 
crease  as  long  as  the  Missouri  Compromise  applies  to  the  Territory  ; 
and  I  suppose  it  will  continue  for  a  little  while  during  their  Terri 
torial  condition,  whether  a  prohibition  is  imposed  or  not.  But 
when  settlers  rush  in— when  labor  becomes  plenty,  and  therefore 
cheap,  in  that  climate,  with  its  productions — it  is  worse  than  folly 
to  think  of  its  being  a  slaveholding  country.  1  do  not  believe  there 
is  a  man  in  Congress  who  thinks  it  could  be  permanently  a  slave- 
holding  country.  I  have  no  idea  that  it  could.  All  I  have  to  say 
on  that  subject  is,  that,  when  you  create  them  into  a  Territory,  you 
thereby  acknowledge  that  they  ought  to  be  considered  a  distinct 
political  organization.  And  when  you  give  them  in  addition  a  lugis- 


STEP  HEN     A       DOUGLA8.  SO 

lature,  you  thereby  confess  that  they  are  competent  to  exercise  the 
powers  of  legislation.  If  they  wish  slavery,  they  have  a  right  to  it. 
If  they  do  not  want  it,  they  will  not  have  it,  and  you  should  not 
attempt  to  force  it  upon  them. 

I  do  not  like,  I  never  did  like,  the  system  of  legislation  on  our 
part,  by  which  a  geographical  line,  in  violation  of  the  laws  of  nature, 
and  climate  and  soil,  and  of  the  laws  of  God,  should  be  run  to  estab 
lish  institutions  for  a  people  contrary  to  their  wishes  ;  yet,  out  of  a 
regard  for  the  peace  and  quiet  of  the  country,  out  of  respect  for  past 
pledges,  and  out  of  a  desire  to  adhere  faithfully  to  all  compromises, 
I  sustained  the  Missouri  compromise  so  long  as  it  was  in  force,  and 
advocated  its  extension  to  the  Pacific  ocean.  Now,  when  that  has 
been  abandoned,  when  it  has  been  superseded,  when  a  great  princi 
ple  of  self-government  has  been  substituted  for  it,  I  choose  to  cling 
to  that  principle,  and  abide  in  good  faith,  not  only  by  the  letter,  but 
by  the  spirit  of  the  last  compromise. 

Sir,  I  do  not  recognize  the  right  of  the  abolitionists  of  this  coun 
try  to  arraign  me  for  being  false  to  sacred  pledges,  as  they  have 
done  in  their  proclamations.  Let  them  show  when  and  where  I 
have  ever  proposed  to  violate  a  compact.  I  have  proved  that  I 
stood  by  the  compact  of  1820  and  1845,  and  proposed  its  continu 
ance  and  observance  in  1848.  I  have  proved  that  the  freesoilers 
and  abolitionists  were  the  guilty  parties  who  violated  that  com 
promise  then.  I  should  like  to  compare  notes  with  the  abolition 
confederates  about  adherence  to  compromises.  When  did  they  stand 
by  or  approve  of  any  one  that  was  ever  made  ? 

Did  not  every  abolitionist  and  freesoiler  in  America  denounce  the 
Missouri  Compromise  in  1820?  Did  they  not  for  years  hunt  down 
ravenously,  for  his  blood,  every  man  who  assisted  in  making  that 
compromise?  Did  they  not  in  1845,  when  Texas  was  annexed, 
denounce  all  of  us  who  went  for  the  annexation  of  Texas,  and  for 
the  continuation  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  line  through  it  ?  Did 
they  not,  in  1848,  denounce  me  as  a  slavery  propagandist  for  stand 
ing  by  the  principles  of  the  Missouri  Compromise,  and  proposing  to 
continue  it  to  the  Pacific  Ocean  ?  Did  they  not  themselves  violate 
and  repudiate  it  then  ?  Is  not  the  charge  of  bad  faith  true  as  to 
every  abolitionist  in  America,  instead  of  being  true  as  to  me  and  the 
committee,  and  those  who  advocate  this  bill  ? 

They  talk  about  the  bill  being  a  violation  of  the  Compromise  mea 
sure  of  1850.  Who  can  show  me  a  man  in  either  house  of  Congress 
who  was  in  favor  of  those  Compromise  measures  in  1850,  and  who  is 
not  now  in  favor  of  leaving  the  people  of  Nebraska  and  Kansas  to  do  as 
they  please  upon  the  subject  of  slavery,  according  to  the  principle  of 
my  bill  ?  Is  there  one  ?  If  so,  I  have  not  heard  of  him.  This  tornado 
has  been  raised  by  abolitionist,  and  abolitionists  alone.  They  have  made 
an  impression  upon  the  public  mind,  in  the  way  in  which  I  have  men 
tioned,  by  a  falsification  of  the  law  and  the  facts;  and  this  whole 
organization  against  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850  is  an  abolition 


00  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES      OF 

movement.  I  presume  they  had  some  hope  of  getting  a  few  tender- 
footed  Democrats  into  their  plot ;  and,  acting  on  what  they  supposed 
they  might  do,  they  sent  forth  publicly  to  the  world  the  falsehood 
that  their  address  was  sighed  by  the  senators  and  a  majority  of  the 
representatives  from  the  State  of  Ohio ;  but  when  we  come  to 
examine  signatures,  we  find  no  one  Whig  there,  no  one  Democrat 
there ;  none  but  pure,  unmitigated,  unadulterated  abolitionists. 

Much  effect,  I  know,  has  been  produced  by  this  circular,  coming 
as  it  does  with  the  imposing  title  of  a  representation  of  a  majority 
of  the  Ohio  delegation.  What  was  the  reason  for  its  effect  ?  Be 
cause  the  manner  in  which  it  was  sent  forth  implied  that  all  the 
Whig  members  from  that  State  had  joined  in  it;  that  part  of  the 
Democrats  had  signed  it ;  and  then  that  the  two  abolitionists  had 
signed  it,  and  that  made  a  majority  of  the  delegation.  By  this 
means  it  frightened  the  Whig  party  and  the  Democracy  in  the  State 
of  Ohio,  because  they  supposed  their  own  representatives  and  friends 
had  gone  into  this  negro  movement,  when  the  fact  turns  out  to  be 
that  it  was  not  signed  by  a  single  Whig  or  Democratic  member  from 
Ohio. 

Tow,  I  ask  the  friends  and  the  opponents  of  this  measure  to  look 
at  it  as  it  is.  Is  not  the  question  involved  the  simple  one,  whether 
the  people  of  the  Territories  shall  be  allowed  to  do  as  they  please 
upon  the  question  of  slavery,  subject  only  to  the  limitations  of  the 
Constitution  ?  That  is  all  the  bill  provides  ;  and  it  does  so  in  clear, 
explicit  and  unequivocal  terms.  I  know  there  are  some  men,  Whigs 
and  Democrats,  who,  not  willing  to  repudiate  the  Baltimore  plat 
form  of  their  own  party,  would  be  willing  to  vote  for  this  principle, 
provided  they  could  do  so  in  such  equivocal  terms  that  they  could 
deny  that  it  means  what  it  was  intended  to  mean  in  certain  localities. 

1  do  not  wish  to  deal  in  any  equivocal  language.     If  the  principle  is 
right,  let  it  be  avowed  and  maintained.     If  it  is  wrong,  let  it  be 
repudiated.     Let  all  this  quibbling  about  the  Missouri  Compromise, 
about  the  territory  acquired  from  France,  about  the  act  of  1820,  be 
cast  behind  you;  for  the  simple  question  is,  will  you  allow  the  peo 
ple  to  legislate  for  themselves  upon  the  subject  of  slavery  ?     Why 
should  you  not  ? 

When  you  propose  to  give  them  a  Territorial  government,  do  you 
not  acknowledge  that  they  ought  to  be  erected  into  a  political  organi 
zation  ;  and  when  you  give  them  a  legislature,  do  you  not  acknow 
ledge  that  they  are  capable  of  self-government?  Having  made  that 
acknowledgment,  why  should  you  not  allow  them  to  exercise  the 
rights  of  legislation  ?  Oh,  these  abolitionists  say  they  are  entirely 
willing  to  concede  all  this,  with  one  exception.  They  say  they  are 
willing,  to  trust  the  Territorial  legislature,  under  the  limitations  of  the 
Constitution,  to  legislate  upon  the  rights  of  inheritance,  to  legislate  in 
regard  to  religion,  education,  and  moral?,  to  legislate  in  regard  to  the 
relations  of  husband  and  wife,  of  parent  and  child,  of  guardian  and 
ward,  upon  everything  pertaining  to  the  dearest  rights  and  interests 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  91 

of  white  men,  but  they  are  not  willing  to  trust  them  to  legislate  in 
regard  to  a  few  miserable  negroes.  That  is  their  single  exception. 
They  acknowledge  that  the  people  of  the  Territories  are  capable  of 
deciding  for  themselves  concerning  white  men,  but  not  in  relation 
to  negroes.  The  real  gist  of  the  matter  is  this :  Does  it  require  any 
higher  degree  of  civilization,  and  intelligence,  and  learning,  and 
sagacity,  to  legislate  for  negroes  than  for  white  men  ?  If  it  does,  we 
ought  to  adopt  the  abolition  doctrine,  and  go  with  them  against  this 
bill.  If  it  does  not — if  we  are  willing  to  trust  the  people  with  the 
great,  sacred,  fundamental  right  of  prescribing  their  own  institutions, 
consistent  with  the  Constitution  of  the  country — we  must  vote  for 
this  bill.  That  is  the  only  question  involved  in  the  bill.  I  hope  I 
have  been  able  to  strip  it  of  all  the  misrepresentation,  to  wipe  away 
all  of  that  mist  and  obscurity  with  which  it  has  been  surrounded  by 
this  abolition  address. 

I  have  now  said  all  I  have  to  say  upon  the  present  occasion.  For 
all,  except  the  first  ten  minutes  of  these  remarks,  the  abolition  con 
federates  are  responsible.  My  object,  in  the  first  place,  was  only  to 
explain  the  provisions  of  the  bill,  so  that  they  might  be  distinctly 
understood.  I  was  willing  to  allow  its  assailants  to  attack  it  as  much 
as  they  pleased,  reserving  to  myself  the  right,  when  the  time  should 
approach  for  taking  the  vote,  to  answer  in  a  concluding  speech  all 
the  arguments  which  might  be  used  against  it.  I  still  reserve — what 
I  believe  common  courtesy  and  parliamentary  usage  awards  to  the 
chairman  of  a  committee  and  the  author  of  a  bill — the  right  of  sum 
ming  up  after  all  shall  have  been  said  which  has  to  be  said  against 
this  measure. 

I  hope  the  compact  which  was  made  on  last  Tuesday,  at  the  sug 
gestion  of  these  abolitionists,  when  the  bill  was  proposed  to  be  taken 
up,  will  be  observed.  It  was  that  the  bill,  when  taken  up  to-day, 
should  continue  to  be  considered  from  day  to  day  until  finally  dis 
posed  of.  I  hope  they  will  not  repudiate  and  violate  that  compact, 
as  they  have  the  Missouri  Compromise  and  all  others  which  have 
been  entered  into.  I  hope,  therefore,  that  we  may  press  the  bill 
to  a  vote;  but  not  by  depriving  persons  of  an  opportunity  of 
speaking. 

I  am  in  favor  of  giving  every  enemy  of  the  bill  the  most  ample 
time.  Let  us  hear  them  all  patiently,  and  then  take  the  vote  and 
pass  the  bill.  We  who  are  in  favor  of  it  know  that  the  principle 
on  which  it  is  based  is  right.  Why,  then,  should  we  gratify  the 
abolition  party  in  their  effort  to  get  up  another  political  tornado 
of  fanaticism,  and  put  the  country  again  in  peril,  merely  for  the 
purpose  of  electing  a  few  agitators  to  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States?  We  intend  to  stand  by  the  principle  of  the  Compromise 
measures  of  1850. 


92  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

ON    NEBRASKA    AND    KANSAS. 

Delivered  in  the  Senate,  March  3,  1854. 

ME.  PEESIDENT  :  before  I  proceed  to  the  general  argument  upon 
the  most  important  branch  of  this  question,  I  must  say  a  few  words 
in  reply  to  the  senator  from  Tennessee  (Mr.  Bell),  who  has  spoken 
upon  the  bill  to-day.  He  approves  of  the  principles  of  the  bill ;  he 
thinks  they  have  great  merit ;  but  he  does  not  see  his  way  entirely 
clear  to  vote  for  the  bill,  because  of  the  objections  which  he  haa 
stated,  most  of  which  relate  to  the  Indians. 

Upon  that  point,  I  desire  to  say  that  it  has  never  been  the  custom 
in  territorial  bills  to-  make  regulations  concerning  the  Indians  within 
the  limits  of  the  proposed  Territories.  All  matters  relating  to  them 
it  has  been  thought  wise  to  leave  to  subsequent  legislation,  to  be 
brought  forward  by  the  Committee  on  Indian  Affairs.  I  did  venture 
originally  in  this  bill  to  put  in  one  or  two  provisions  upon  that  sub 
ject;  but,  at  the  suggestion  of  many  senators  on  both  sides  of  the 
chamber,  they  were  stricken  out,  in  order  to  allow  the  appropriate 
committee  of  the  Senate  to  take  charge  of  that  subject.  I  think, 
therefore,  since  we  have  stricken  from  the  bill  all  those  provisions 
which  pertain  to  the  Indians,  and  reserved  the  whole  subject  for  the 
consideration  and  action  of  the  appropriate  committee,  we  have 
obviated  every  possible  objection  which  could  reasonably  be  urged 
upon  that  score.  AVe  have  every  reason  to  hope  and  trust  that  the 
Committee  on  Indian  Affairs  will  propose  such  measures  as  will  do 
entire  justice  to  the  Indians,  without  contravening  the  objects  of 
Congress  in  organizing  these  Territories. 

But,  sir,  allusion  has  been  made  to  certain  Indian  treaties,  and  it 
has  been  intimated,  if  not  charged  in  direct  terms,  that  we  were  vio 
lating  the  stipulations  of  those  treaties  in  respect  to  the  rights  and 
lands  of  the  Indians.  The  senator  from  Texas  (Mr.  Houston),  made 
a  very  long  and  interesting  speech  on  that  subject;  but  it  so  hap 
pened  that  most  of  the  treaties  to  which  he  referred  were  with  In 
dians  not  included  within  the  limits  of  this  bill.  We  have  been  in 
formed,  in  the  course  of  the  debate  to-day,  by  the  chairman  of  the 
Committee  on  Indian  Affairs  (Mr.  Sebastian),  that  there  is  but  one 
treaty  in  existence  relating  to  lands  or  Indians  within  the  limits  of 
either  of  the  proposed  Territories,  and  that  is  the  treaty  with  the 
Ottawa  Indians,  about  two  hundred  persons  in  number,  owning 
about  thirty-four  thousand  acres  of  land.  Thus  it  appears  that  the 
whole  argument  of  injustice  to  the  red  man,  which  in  the  course  of 
this  debate  has  called  forth  so  much  sympathy  and  indignation,  is 
confined  to  two  hundred  Indians,  owning  less  than  two  townships 
of  land.  Now,  sir,  is  it  possible  that  a  country,  said  to  be  five  hun- 


STEPHEN     A.DOUGLAS.  93 

dred  thousand  square  miles  in  extent,  and  large  enough  to  make 
twelve  such  States  as  Ohio,  is  to  be  consigned  to  perpetual  barbarism 
merely  on  account  of  that  small  number  of  Indians,  when  the  bill 
itself  expressly  provides  that  those  Indians  and  their  lands  are  not 
to  be  included  within  the  limits  of  the  proposed  Territories,  nor  to 
be  subject  to  their  laws  or  jurisdiction?  I  would  not  ailow  this 
measure  to  invade  the  rights  of  even  one  Indian,  and  hence  I  inserted 
in  the  first  section  of  the  bill  that  none  of  the  tribes  with  whom  we 
nave  treaty  stipulations  should  be  embraced  within  either  of  the 
Territories,  unless  such  Indians  shall  voluntarily  consent  to  be  in 
cluded  therein  by  treaties  hereafter  to  be  made.  If  any  senator  can 
furnish  me  with  language  more  explicit,  or  which  would  prove 
more  effectual  in  securing  the  rights  of  the  Indians,  I  will  cheerfully 
adopt  it. 

Well,  sir,  the  senator  from  Tennessee,  in  a  very  kind  spirit,  here 
raises  the  objection  for  me  to  answer,  that  this  bill  includes  Indians 
within  the  limits  of  these  Territories  with  whom  we  have  no  trea 
ties  ;  and  he  desires  to  know  what  we  are  to  do  with  them.  I  will 
say  to  him,  that  that  is  not  a  matter  of  inquiry  which  necessarily  or 
properly  arises  upon  the  passage  of  this  bill ;  that  is  not  a  proper 
inquiry  to  come  before  the  Committee  on  Territories.  You  have  in 
all  your  Territorial  bills  included  Indians  within  the  boundaries  of 
the  Territories.  When  you  erected  the  Territory  of  Minnesota,  you 
had  not  extinguished  the  Indian  title  to  one  foot  of  land  in  that  Ter 
ritory  west  of  the  Mississippi  River,  and  to  the  major  part  of  that 
Territory  the  Indian  title  remains  uuextinguished  to  this  day.  In 
addition  to  those  wild  tribes,  you  removed  Indians  from  Wisconsin 
and  located  them  within  Minnesota  since  the  Territory  was  organ 
ized.  It  will  be  a  question  for  the  consideration  of  the  Committee 
on  Indian  Affairs,  and  for  the  action  of  Congress,  when,  in  settle 
ment  and  civilization,  it  shall  become  necessar/to  change  the  present 
policy  in  respect  to  the  Indians.  When  you  erected  the  Territorial 
government  of  Oregon,  a  few  years  ago,  you  embraced  within  it  all 
the  Indians  living  in  the  Territory  without  their  consent,  and  with 
out  any  such  reservations  in  their  behalf  as  are  contained  in  this  bill. 
You  had  not  at  that  time  made  a  treaty  with  those  Indians,  nor  ex 
tinguished  their  title  to  an  acre  of  land  in  that  Territory,  nor  indeed 
have  you  done  so  to  this  day.  So  it  is  in  the  organization  of  Wash 
ington  Territory.  You  ran  the  lines  around  the  country  which  you 
thought  ought  to  be  within  the  limits  of  the  Territory,  and  you  em 
braced  all  the  Indians  within  those  lines ;  but  you  made  no  provision 
in  respect  to  their  rights  or  lands ;  you  left  that  matter  to  the  Com 
mittee  on  Indian  Affairs,  to  the  Indian  laws,  and  to  the  proper  de 
partment,  to  be  arranged  afterward  as  the  public  interests  might 
require.  The  same  is  true  in  reference  to  Utah  and  New  Mexico. 

In  fact,  the  policy  provided  for  in  this  bill,  in  respect  to  the  In 
dians,  is  that  which  is  now  in  force  in  every  one  of  the  Territories. 
Therefore,  any  senator  who  objects  to  this  bill  on  that  score  should 


94:  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

have  objected  to  and  voted  against  every  Territorial  bill  which  you 
have  now  in  existence.  Yet  my  friend  from  Texas  has  taken  occa 
sion  to  remind  the  Senate  several  times  that  it  was  a  matter  of  pride 
— and  it  ought  to  be  a  matter  of  patriotic  pride  with  him — that  he 
voted  for  every  measure  of  the  Compromise  of  1850,  including  the 
Utah  and  New  Mexico  Territorial  bills,  embracing  all  the  Indians 
within  their  limits.  My  friend  from  Tennessee,  too,  has  been  very 
liberal  in  voting  for  most  of  the  Territorial  bills ;  and  I  therefore 
trust  that  the  same  patriotic  and  worthy  motives  which  induced  him 
to  vote  for  the  Territorial  acts  of  1850  will  enable  him  to  give  his 
support  to  the  present  bill,  especially  as  he  approves  of  the  great 
principle  of  popular  sovereignty  upon  which  it  rests. 

The  senator  from  Tennessee  remarked  further,  that  the  proposed 
:  limits  of  these  two  Territories  were  too  extensive ;  that  they  were 
large  enough  to  be  erected  into  eight  different  States ;  and  why,  he 
asked,  the  necessity  of  including  such  a  vast  amount  of  country 
within  the  limits  of  these  two  Territories  ?  I  must  remind  the  sena 
tor  that  it  has  always  been  the  practice  to  include  a  large  extent  of 
country  within  one  Territory,  and  then  to  subdivide  it  fronrthne  to 
time  as  the  public  interest  might  require.  Such  was  the  case  with 
the  old  Northwest  Territory.  It  was  all  originally  included  within 
one  Territorial  government.  Afterward  Ohio  was  cut  off;  and  then 
Indiana,  Michigan,  Illinois  and  Wisconsin,  were  successively  erected 
into  separate  Territorial  governments,  and  subsequently  admitted 
into  the  Union  as  States. 

At  one  period,  it  will  be  remembered,  the  Territory  of  Wisconsin 
included  the  country  embraced  within  the  limits  of  the  States  of 
Wisconsin  and  Iowa,  and  a  part  of  the  State  of  Michigan,  and  the 
Territory  of  Minnesota.  There  is  country  enough  within  the  Terri 
tory  of  Minnesota  to  make  two  or  three  States  of  the  size  of  New 
York.  Washington  Territory  embraces  about  the  same  area.  Ore 
gon  is  large  enough  to  make  three  or  four  States  as  extensive  a3 
Pennsylvania;  Utah  two  or  three,  and  New  Mexico  four  or  five  of 
like  dimensions.  Indeed,  the  whole  country  embraced  within  the 
proposed  Territories  of  Nebraska  and  Kansas,  together  with  the 
States  of  Arkansas,  Missouri  and  Iowa,  and  the  larger  part  of  Min 
nesota,  and  the  whole  of  the  Indian  country  west  of  Arkansas,  once 
constituted  a  Territorial  government,  under  the  name  of  the  Mis 
souri  Territory.  In  view  of  this  course  of  legislation  upon  the  sub 
ject  of  Territorial  organization,  commencing  before  the  adoption  of 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  coming  down  to  the  last 
session  of  Congress,  it  surely  cannot  be  said  that  there  is  anything 
unusual  or  extraordinary  in  the  size  of  the  proposed  Territory  which 
should  compel  a  senator  to  vote  against  the  bill,  while  he  approves 
of  the  principles  involved  in  the  measure. 

Y  It  has  also  been  urged  in  debate  that  there  is  no  necessity  for  these 
\  Territorial  organizations;  and  I  have  been  called  upon  to  point  out 
\  any  public  and  national  considerations  which  require  action  at  this 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  95 

time.  Senators  seem  to  forget  that  our  immense  and  valuable  pos 
sessions  on  the  Pacific  are  separated  from  the  States  and  organized 
Territories  on  this  side  of  the  Rocky  Mountains  by  a  vast  wilder 
ness,  filled  by  hostile  savages  ;  that  nearly  a  hundred  thousand  emi 
grants  pass  through  this  barbarous  wilderness  every  year,  on  their 
way  to  California  and  Oregon ;  that  these  emigrants  are  American 
citizens,  our  own  constituents,  who  are  entitled  to  the  protection  of 
law  and  government ;  and  that  they  are  left  to  make  their  way,  as 
best  they  may,  without  the  protection  or  aid  of  law  or  governmentj 

The  United  States  mails  for  New  Mexico  and  Utah,  and  all  official 
communications  between  this  government  and  the  authorities  of 
those  Territories,  are  required  to  be  carried  over  these  wild  plains, 
and  through  the  gorges  of  the  mountains,  where  you  have  made  no 
provision  for  roads,  bridges,  or  ferries,  to  facilitate  travel,  or  forts 
or  other  means  of  safety  to  protect  life.     As  often  as  I  have  brought 
forward  and  urged  the  adoption  of  measures  to  remedy  these  evils, 
and  afford  security  against  the  dangers  to  which  our  people  are  con 
stantly  exposed,  they  have  been  promptly  voted  down  as  not  being 
of  sufficient  importance  to  command  the  favorable  consideration  of 
Congress.     Now,  when  I  propose  "to  organize  the  Territories,  and 
allow  the  people  to  do  for  themselves  what  you  have  so  often  re-j 
fused  to  do  for  them,  I  am  told  that  there  are  not  white  inhabitants ' 
enough  permanently  settled  in  the  country  to  require  and  sustain  a ; 
government.     True,  there  is  not  a  very  large  population  there,  for  * 
the  very  good  reason  that  your  Indian  code  and  intercourse  laws  ex-  \ 
elude  the  settlers,  and  forbid  their  remaining  there  to  cultivate  the  } 
soil.     You  refuse  to  throw  the  country  open  to  settlers,  and  then  J 
object  to  the  organization  of  the  Territories  upon  the  ground  that 
there  is  not  a  sufficient  number  of  inhabitants. 

The  senator  from  Connecticut  (Mr.  Smith)  has  made  a  long  argu 
ment  to  prove  that  there  are  no  inhabitants  in  the  proposed  Terri 
tories,  because  nearly  all  of  those  who  have  gone  and  settled  there 
have  done  so  in  violation  of  certain  old  acts  of  Congress  which  for 
bid  the  people  to  take  possession  of  and  settle  upon  the  public  lands 
until  after  they  should  be  surveyed  and  brought  into  market. 

I  do  not  propose  to  discuss  the  question  whether  these  settlers  are 
technically  legal  inhabitants  or  not.  It  is  enough  for  me  that  they 
are  a  part  of  our  own  people ;  that  they  are  settled  on  the  public 
domain  ;  that  the  public  interests  would  be  promoted  by  throwing 
that  public  domain  open  to  settlement ;  and  that  there  is  no  good 
reason  why  the  protection  of  law  and  the  blessings  of  government 
should  not  be  extended  to  them.  I  must  be  permitted  to  remind 
the  senator  that  the  same  objection  existed  in  its  full  force  to  Mirine 
sota,  to  Oregon  and  to  Washington,  when  each  of  those  Territories 
were  organized;  and  that  I  have  no  recollection  that  he  deemed  it 
his  duty  to  call  the  attention  of  Congress  to  the  objection,  or  con 
sidered  it  of  sufficient  importance  to  justify  him  in  recording  his 
vote  against  the  organization  of  either  of  those  Territories. 


96  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

Mr.  President,  I  do  not  feel  called  upon  to  make  any  reply  to  the 
argument  which  the  senator  from  Connecticut  has  urged  against  the 
passage  of  this  bill  upon  the  score  of  expense  in  sustaining  these  Ter 
ritorial  governments,  for  the  reason  that,  if  the  public  interests  re 
quire  the  enactment  of  the  law,  it  follows  as  a  natural  consequence 
that  all  the  expenses  necessary  to  carry  it  into  effect  are  wise  and 
proper. 

1  will  now  proceed  to  the  consideration  of  the  great  principle  in 
volved  in  the  bill,  without  omitting,  however,  to  notice  some  of 
Ihose  extraneous  matters  which  have  been  brought  into  this  discus 
sion  with  the  view  of  producing  another  anti-slavery  agitation.  We 
ihave  been  told  by  nearly  every  senator  who  has  spoken  in  opposition 
'to  this  bill,  that  at  the  time  of  its  introduction  the  people  were  in  a 
state  of  profound  quiet  and  repose ;  that  the  anti-slavery  agitation 
had  entirely  ceased ;  and  that  the  whole  country  was  acquiescing 
cheerfully  and  cordially  in  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850,  as  a 
final  adjustment  of  this  vexed  question. 

Sir,  it  is  truly  refreshing  to  hear  senators  who  contested  every 
inch  of  ground  in  opposition  to  those  measures  when  they  were 
under  discussion,  who  predicted  all  manner  of  evils  and  calamities 
from  their  adoption,  and  who  raised  the  cry  of  repeal,  and  even 
resistance,  to  their  execution,  after  they  had  become  the  laws  of  the 
land — I  say  it  is  really  refreshing  to  hear  these  same  senators  now 
bear  their  united  testimony  to  the  wisdom  of  those  measures,  and  to 
the  patriotic  motives  which  induced  us  to  pass  them  in  defiance  of 
their  threats  and  resistance,  and  to  their  beneficial  effects  in  restor 
ing  peace,  harmony  and  fraternity  to  a  distracted  country.  These 
are  precious  confessions  from  the  lips  of  those  who  stand  pledged 
never  to  assent  to  the  propriety  of  those  measures,  and  to  make  war 
upon  them  so  long  as  they  shall  remain  upon  the  statute-book.  I 
well  understand  that  these  confessions  are  now  made,  not  with  the 
view  of  yielding  their  assent  to  the  propriety  of  carrying  those 
enactments  into  faithful  execution,  but  for  the  purpose  of  having  a 
pretext  for  charging  upon  me,  as  the  author  of  this  bill,  the  responsi 
bility  of  an  agitation  which  they  are  striving  to  produce.  They  say 
that  1,  and  not  they,  have  revived  theagitation.  YWhat  have  1  done 
to  render  me  obnoxious  to  this  chargeFjThey  sayT*Vrote  and  intro 
duced  this  Nebraska  Bill.  That  is  frue;  but  I  was  not  a  volunteer 
in  the  transaction.  The  Senate,  by  a  unanimous  vote,  appointed  me 
chairman  of  the  Territorial  Committee,  and  associated  five  intelligent 
and  patriotic  senators  with  me,  and  thus  made  it  our  duty  to  take 
charge  of  all  Territorial  business.  In  like  manner,  and  with  the 
concurrence  of  these  complaining  senators,  the  Senate  referred  to  us 
a  distinct  proposition  to  organize  this  Nebraska  Territory,  and  re 
quired  us  tc  report  specifically  upon  the  question.  1  repeat,  then, 
we  were  not  volunteers  in  this  business.  The  duty  was  imposed 
upon  us  by  the  Senate.  We  were  not  unmindful  of  the  delicacy  and 
responsibility  of  the  position.  Wo  were  aware  that  from  1820  to 


STEPHEN      A.DOUGLAS.  97 

1850  the  abolition  doctrine  of  Congressional  interference  with  slavery 
in  the  Territories  arid  new  States  had  so  far  prevailed  as  to  keep  up 
an  incessant  slavery  agitation  in  Congress  and  throughout  the  coun 
try,  whenever  any  new  Territory  was  to  be  acquired  or  organized. 
We  were  also  aware  that,  in  1850,  the  right  of  the  people  to  decide 
this  question  for  themselves,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution,  was 
substituted  for  the  doctrine  of  Congressional  intervention.  The  first 
question,  therefore,  which  the  committee  were  called  upon  to  decide, 
and  indeed  the  only  question  of  any  material  importance,  in  framing 
this  bill,  was  this :  Shall  we  adhere  to  and  carry  out  the  principle 
recognized  by  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850,  or  shall  we  go 
back  to  the  old  exploded  doctrine  of  Congressional  interference,  as 
established  in  1820  in  a  large  portion  of  the  country,  and  which  it 
was  the  object  of  the  Wilmot  Proviso  to  give  a  universal  applica 
tion,  not  only  to  all  the  Territory  which  we  then  possessed,  but  all 
which  we  might  hereafter  acquire  ?  There  were  no  other  alterna 
tives.  We  were  compelled  to  frame  the  bill  upon  the  one  or  the 
other  of  these  two  principles.  The  doctrine  of  1820  or  the  doctrine 
of  1850  must  prevail.  In  the  discharge  of  the  duty  imposed  upon  us 
by  tlie  Senate,  the  committee  could  not  hesitate  upon  this  point, 
whether  we  consulted  our  individual  opinions  and  principles,  or 
those  which  were  known  to  be  entertained  and  boldly  avowed  by  a 
large  majority  of  the  Senate.  The  two  great  political  parties  of  the 
country  stood  solemnly  pledged  before  the  world  to  adhere  to  the 
Compromise  measures  of  1850,  "in  principle  and  substance."  A 
large  majority  of  the  Senate,  indeed  every  member  of  the  body,  I 
believe,  except  the  two  avowed  abolitionists  (Mr.  Chase  and  Mr. 
Sumner),  profess  to  belong  to  the  one  or  the  other  of  these  parties, 
and  hence  was  supposed  to  be  under  a  high  moral  obligation  to  carry 
out  the  "principle  and  substance"  of  those  measures  in  all  new  Ter 
ritorial  organizations.  The  report  of  the  committee  was  in  accord 
ance  with  this  obligation.  1  am  arraigned,  therefore,  for  having 
endeavored  to  represent  the  opinions  and  principles  of  the  Senate 
truly  ;  for  having  performed  my  duty  in  conformity  with  the  parlia 
mentary  law ;  for  having  been  faithful  to  the  trust  reposed  in  me  by 
the  Senate.  Let  the  vote  this  night  determine  whether  1  have  thus 
faithfully  represented  your  opinions.  When  a  majority  of  the  Senate 
shall  have  passed  the  bill ;  when  a  majority  of  the  States  shall  have 
indorsed  it  through  their  representatives  upon  this  floor ;  when  a 
majority  of  the  South  and  a  majority  of  the  North  shall  have  sanc 
tioned  it ;  when  a  majority  of  the  Whig  party  and  a  majority  of  the 
Democratic  party  shall  have  voted  for  it;  when  each  of  these  pro 
positions  shall  be  demonstrated  by  the  vote  this  night  on  the  final 
passage  of  the  bill,  I  shall  be  willing  to  submit  the  question  to  the 
country,  whether,  as  the  organ  of  the  committee,  1  performed  iny 
duty  in  the  report  and  bill  which  have  called  down  upon  my  head 
so  much  denunciation  and  abuse. 

Mr.  President,  the  opponents  of  this  measure  have  had  much  to 


98  THE     LIFE     A  X  D     SPEECHES     OF 

say  about  the  mutations  and  modifications  which  this  bill  lias  under 
gone  since  it  was  first  introduced  by  myself,  and  about  the  alleged 
departure  of  the  bill,  in  its  present  form,  from  the  principle  laid 
down  in  the  original  report  of  the  committee  as  a  rule  of  action  in 
all  future  Territorial  organizations.  Fortunately  there  is  no  neces 
sity,  even  if  your  patience  would  tolerate  such  a  course  of  argument 
at  this  late  hour  of  the  night,  for  me  to  examine  these  speeches  in 
detail,  and  to  reply  to  each  charge  separately.  Each  speaker  seems 
to  have  followed  faithfully  in  the  footsteps  of  his  leader — in  the  path 
marked  out  by  the  abolition  confederates  in  their  manifesto,  which 
T  exposed  on  a  former  occasion.  You  have  seen  them  on  their  wind 
ing  way,  meandering  the  narrow  and  crooked  path  in  Indian  file, 
each  treading  close  upon  the  heels  of  the  other,  and  neither  ventur 
ing  to  take  a  step  to  the  right  or  left,  or  to  occupy  one  inch  of  ground 
which  did  not  bear  the  foot-print  of  the  abolition  champion.  To 
answer  one,  therefore,  is  to  answer  the  whole.  The  statement  to 
which  they  seem  to  attach  the  most  importance,  and  which  they 
have  repeated  oftener  perhaps  than  any  other,  is,  that,  pending  the 
Compromise  measures  of  1850,  no  man  in  or  out  of  Congress  ever 
dreamed  of  abrogating  the  Missouri  Compromise;  that  from  that 
period  down  to  the  present  session,  nobody  supposed  that  its  validity 
had  been  impaired,  or  anything  done  which  rendered  it  obligatory 
upon  us  to  make  it  inoperative  hereafter ;  that  at  the  time  of  sub 
mitting  the  report  and  bill  to  the  Senate,  on  the  4th  of  January  last, 
neither  I  nor  any  member  of  the  committee  ever  thought  of  such  a 
thing ;  and  that  we  could  never  be  brought  up  to  the  point  of  abro 
gating  the  eighth  section  of  the  Missouri  act  until  after  the  senator 
from  Kentucky  introduced  his  amendment  to  my  bill. 

Mr.  President,  before  I  proceed  to  expose  the  many  misrepresenta 
tions  contained  in  this  complicated  charge,  I  must  call  the  attention 
of  the  Senate  to  the  false  issue  which  these  gentlemen  are  endeavor 
ing  to  impose  i.\  on  the  country,  for  the  purpose  of  diverting  public 
attention  from  the  real  issue  contained  in  the  bill.  They  wish  to 
have  the  people  believe  that  the  abrogation  of  what  they  call  the 
Missouri  Compromise  was  the  main  object  and  aim  of  the  bill,  and 
that  the  only  questic  n  involved  is,  whether  the  prohibition  of  slavery 
north  of  86°  30*  shall  be  repealed  or  not?  That  which  is  a  mere 
incident,  they  choose  to  consider  the  principal.  They  make  war  on 
the  means  by  which  we  propose  to  accomplish  an  object,  instead  of 
openly  resisting  the  object  itself.  The  principle  which  we  propose 
to  carry  into  effect  by  the  bill  is  this :  That  Congress  shall  neither 
legislate  slavery  into  any  Territories  or  State,  nor  out  of  the  same  ; 
but  the  people  shall  be  left  free  to  regulate  their  domestic  concerns 
in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States. 

In  order  to  carry  this  principle  into  practical  operation,  it  becomes 
necessary  to  remove  whatever  legal  obstacles  might  be  found  in  the 
way  of  its  free  exercise.  It  is  snly  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  out 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  99 

this  great  fundamental  principle  of  self-government  that  the  bill 
renders  the  eighth  section  of  the  Missouri  act  inoperative  and 
void. 

Now,  let  me  ask,  will  these  senators  who  have  arraigned  me,  or 
any  one  of  them,  have  the  assurance  to  rise  in  his  place  and  declare 
that  this  great  principle  was  never  thought  of  or  advocated  as  appli 
cable  to  Territorial  bills  in  1850;  that,  from  that  session  until  the 
present,  nobody  ever  thought  of  incorporating  this  principle  in  all 
new  Territorial  organizations;  that  the  Committee  on  Territories 
did  not  recommend  it  in  their  report;  and  that  it  required  the 
amendment  of  the  senator  from  Kentucky  to  bring  us  up  to  that 
point  ?  Will  any  one  of  my  accusers  dare  to  make  this  issue,  and 
let  it  be  tried  by  the  record  ?  I  will  begin  with  the  compromises  of 
1850.  Any  senator  who  will  take  the  trouble  to  examine  our  jour 
nals  will  find  that  on  the  25th  of  March  of  that  year  I  reported  from 
the  Committee  on  Territories  two  bills  including  the  following  mea 
sures  :  The  admission  of  California,  a  Territorial  government  for 
Utah,  a  Territorial  government  for  New  Mexico,  and  the  adjustment 
of  the  Texas  boundary.  These  bills  proposed  to  leave  the  people  of 
Utah  and  New  Mexico  free  to  decide  the  slavery  question  for  them 
selves,  in  the  precise  language  of  the  Nebraska  Bill  now  under  dis 
cussion.  A  few  weeks  afterward,  the  Committee  of  Thirteen  took 
those  two  bills  and  put  a  wafer  between  them,  and  reported  them 
back  to  the  Senate  as  one  bill,  with  some  slight  amendments.  One 
of  those  amendments  was,  that  the  Territorial  legislatures  should 
not  legislate  upon  the  subject  of  African  slavery.  I  objected  to  that 
provision  upon  the  ground  that  it  subverted  the  great  principle  of 
self-government  upon  which  the  bill  had  been  originally  framed  by 
the  Territorial  Committee.  On  the  the  first  trial,  the  Senate  refused 
to  strike  it  out,  but  subsequently  did  so,  after  full  debate,  in  order 
to  establish  that  principle  as  the  rule  of  action  in  Territorial  organi 
zations. 

Upon  this  point  I  trust  I  will  be  excused  for  reading  one  or  two 
sentences  from  some  remarks  I  made  in  the  Senate  on  the  3d  of  June, 
1850: 

''  The  position  that  I  have  ever  taken  has  been  that  this,  the  slavery  question, 
and  all  other  questions  relating  to  the  domestic  affairs  and  domestic  policy  of 
the  Territories,  ought  to  be  left  to  the  decision  of  the  people  themselves,  and 
that  we  ought  to  be  content  with  whatever  way  they  would  decide  the  ques 
tion,  because  they  have  a  much  deeper  interest  in  these  matters  than  we  have, 
and  know  much  better  what  institutions  will  suit  them,  than  we,  who  have 
never  been  there,  can  decide  for  them." 

Again,  in  the  same  debate,  I  said : 

"  I  do  not  see  how  those  of  us  who  have  taken  the  position  which  we  have 
taken,  (that  of  non-interference,)  and  have  argued  in  favor  of  the  right  of  the 
people  to  legislature  for  themselves  on  this  question,  can  support  such  a  pro 
vision  without  abandoning  .all  the  arguments  which  we  urged  in  the  Presiden 


100  THE     LIFE     ANT      SPEECHES     OF 

tial  campaign  in  the  year  1848,  and  the  principli 
senator  from  Michigan  in  that  letter  which  is  known  as  the  'Nicholson  letter.' 
We  are  required  to  abandon  that  platform  ;  we  are  required  to  abandon  those 
principles,  and  to  stultify  ourselves,  and  to  adopt  the  opposite  doctrine;  and 
for  what?  In  order  to  say  that  the  people  of  the  Territories  shall  not  have 
such  institutions  as  they  shall  deem  adapted  to  their  condition  and  their  wants. 
I  do  not  see,  sir,  how  such  a  provision  as  that  can  be  acceptable  either  to  the 
people  of  the  North  or  the  South." 

Mr.  President,  I  could  go  on  and  multiply  extract  after  extract 
from  my  speeches  in  1850,  and  prior  to  that  date,  to  show  that  this 
doctrine  of  leaving  the  people  to  decide  these  questions  for  them 
selves  is  not  an  u  after-thought  "  with  me,  seized  upon,  this  session, 
for  the  first  time,  as  my  calumniators  have  so  frequently  and  boldly 
charged  in  their  speeches  during  this  debate,  and  in  their  manifesto 
to  the  public.  I  refused  to  support  the  celebrated  Omnibus  Bill  in 
1850  until  the  obnoxious  provision  was  stricken  out,  and  the  principle 
of  self-government  restored,  as  it  existed  in  my  original  bill.  ISTo 
sooner  were  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850  passed,  than  the 
abolition  confederates,  who  lead  the  opposition  to  this  bill  now, 
raised  the  cry  of  repeal  in  some  sections  of  the  country,  and  in  others 
forcible  resistance  to  the  execution  of  the  law.  In  order  to  arrest 
and  suppress  the  treasonable  purposes  of  these  abolition  confederates, 
and  avert  the  horrors  of  civil  war,  it  became  my  duty,  on  the  28(1 
of  October,  1850,  to  address  an  excited  and  frenzied  multitude  at 
Chicago,  in  defence  of  each  and  all  of  the  Compromise  measures  of 
that  year.  I  will  read  one  or  two  sentences  from  that  speech,  to 
show  how  those  measures  were  then  understood  and  explained  by 
their  advocates : 

1"  These  measures  are  predicated  on  the  great  fundamental  principle  that  every 
people  ought  to  possess  the  right  of  fm^ming  and  regulating  their  own  internal 
concerns  and  domestic  institutions  in  their  awn  way.1' 

Again : 

\  "  These  things  are  all  confided  by  the  Constitution  to  each  State  to  decide 
\  for  itself,  and  I  KNOW  OF  NO  REASON  WHY  THE  same  principle  should  not  be  con- 
\Jlded  to  the  Territories.1' 

In  this  speech  it  will  be  seen  that  I  lay  down  a  general  principle 
of  universal  application,  and  make  no  distinction  between  Terri 
tories  north  or  south  of  36°  30'. 

I  am  aware  that  some  of  the  abolition  confederates  have  perpe 
trated  a  monstrous  forgery  on  that  speech,  and  are  now  circulating 
through  the  abolition  newspapers  the  statement  that  I  said  that 
I  would  "  cling  with  the  tenacity  of  life  to  the  compromise  of  1820  " 
This  statement,  false  as  it  is — a  deliberate  act  of  forgery,  as  it  is 
known  to  be  by  all  who  have  ever  seen  or  read  the  speech  referred 
to — constitutes  the  staple  article  out  of  which  mo- 1  of  the  abolition 
orators  at  the  small  anti-oSTebraska  meetings  manufacture  the  greater 
part  of  their  speeches.  I  now  declare  that  there  is  not  a  sentence, 


STEPHEN      A.     DOUGLAS.  101 

a  line,  even  a  word  in  that  speech,  which  imposes  the  slightest  limi 
tation  on  the  application  of  the  great  principle  embraced  in  this 
bill  in  all  new  Territorial  organizations,  without  the  least  reference 
to  the  line  of  30°  30'. 

At  the  session  of  1850-51,  a  few  weeks  after  this  speech  was 
made  at  Chicago,  and  when  it  had  been  published  in  pamphlet  form 
and  circulated  extensively  over  the  States,  the  legislature  of  Illinois 
proceeded  to  revise  its  action  upon  the  slavery  question,  and  define 
its  position  on  the  compromise  of  1850.  After  rescinding  the  reso 
lutions  adopted  at  a  previous  session,  instructing  my  colleague  and 
myself  to  vote  for  a  proposition  prohibiting  slavery  in  the  Territories, 
resolutions  were  adopted  approving  the  Compromise  measures  of 
1 850.  I  will  read  one  of  the  resolutions,  which  was  adopted  in  the 
House  of  Representatives,  by  a  vote  of  61  yeas  to  4  nays : 

"  Resolved,  That  our  liberty  and  independence  are  bashed  upon  the  right  of 
the  people  to  form  for  themselves  such  a  government  as  they  may  choose  ; 
that  this  great  privilege — the  birthright  of  freemen,  the  gift  of  Heaven,  secured 
to  us  by  the  blood  of  our  ancestors — ought  to  be  extended  to  future  generations ; 
and  no  limitation  ought  to  be  applied  to  this  power,  in  the  organization  of  any 
Territory  of  the  United  States,  of  either  a  Territorial  government  or  a  State 
Constitution  :  Provided,  The  government  so  established  shall  be  republican, 
and  in  conformity  with  the  Constitution." 

Another  series  of  resolutions  having  passed  the  Senate  almost 
unanimously,  embracing  the  same  principle  in  different  language, 
they  were  concurred  in  by  the  House.  Thus  was  the  position  of 
Illinois,  upon  the  slavery  question  defined  at  the  first  session  of  the 
legislature  after  the  adoption  of  the  Compromise  of  1850. 

Now,  sir,  what  becomes  of  the  declaration  which  has  been  made 
by  nearly  every  opponent  of  this  bill,  that  nobody  in  this  whole 
Union  ever  dreamed  that  the  principle  of  the  Utah  and  New  Mexican 
bill  was  to  be  incorporated  into  all  future  Territorial  organizations  ? 
I  have  shown  that  my  own  State  so  understood  and  declared  it  at 
the  time  in  the  most  implicit  and  solemn  manner.  Illinois  declared 
that  our  "liberty  and  independence"  rest  upon  this  "principle;" 
that  the  principle  "ought  to  be  extended  to  future  generations;" 
and  that  "NO  LIMITATION  OUGHT  TO  BE  APPLIED  TO  THIS  POWER  IN 

T1IE  OEGANIZATION  OF  ANY   TERRITORY   OF   THE  UNITED  STATES."       No 

exception  is  made  in  regard  to  Nebraska.  No  Missouri  Compromise 
lines  ;  no  reservations  of  the  country  north  of  36°  30'.  The  principle 
is  declared  to  be  be  the  "  birthright  of  freemen  :"  the  "  gift  of  Hea 
ven,  to  be  applied  without  limitation,"  in  Nebraska  as  well  as  Utah, 
north  as  well  as  south  of  36°  30'. 

It  may  not  be  out  of  place  here  to  remark  that  the  legislature  of 
Illinois,  at  its  recent  session,  has  passed  resolutions  approving  the 
Nebraska  Bill ;  and  among  the  resolutions  is  one  in  the  precise 
language  of  the  resolution  of  1851,  which  I  have  just  read  to  the 
Senate. 


102       THE   LIFE  AND   SPEECHES   OF 

Thus  I  have  shown,  Mr.  President,  that  the  legislature  and  people 
of  Illinois  have  always  understood  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850 
as  establishing  certain  principles  as  rules  of  action  in  the  organization 
of  all  new  Territories,  and  that  no  limitation  was  to  be  made  on 
either  side  of  the  geographical  line  of  36°  30'. 

Neither  my  time  nor  your  patience  will  allow  me  to  take  up  the 
resolutions  of  the  different  States  in  detail,  and  show  what  has  been 
the  common  understanding  of  the  whole  country  upon  this  point.  I 
am  now  vindicating  myself  and  my  own  action  against  the  assaults 
of  my  calumniators ;  and,  for  that  purpose,  it  is  sufficient  to  show 
that,  in  the  report  and  bill  which  I  have  presented  to  the  Senate,  I 
have  only  carried  out  the  known  principles  and  solemnly  declared 
will  of  the  State  whose  representative  I  am.  I  will  now  invite  the 
attention  of  the  Senate  to  the  report  of  the  committee,  in  order  that 
it  may  be  known  how  much,  or  rather  how  little,  truth  there  is  for 
the  allegation  which  has  been  so  often  made  and  repeated  on  this 
floor,  that  the  idea  of  allowing  the  people  in  Nebraska  to  decide  the 
slavery  question  for  themselves  was  a  "  sheer  after-thought,"  con 
ceived  since  the  report  was  made,  and  not  until  the  senator  from 
Kentucky  proposed  his  amendment  to  the  bill. 

I  read  from  that  portion  of  the  report  in  which  the  committee 
lay  down  the  principle  by  which  they  propose  to  be  governed : 

"  In  the  judgment  of  your  committee,  those  measures  (Compromise  of  1850) 
were  intended  to  have  a  far  more  comprehensive  and  enduring  effect  than  the 
mere  adjustment  of  the  difficulties  arising  out  of  the  recent  acquisition  of 
Mexican  territory.  They  were  designed  to  establish  certain  great  principles, 
which  would  not  only  furnish  adequate  remedies  for  existing  evils,  but  in  all 
lime  to  come  avoid  the  perils  of  a  similar  agitation,  by  withdrawing  the  question 
of  slavery  from  the  halls  of  Congress  and  the  political  arena,  and  committing  it  to 
the  arbitrament  of  those  who  were  immediately  interested  in  and  alone  responsible 
for  its  consequences.1' 

After  making  a  brief  argument  in  defence  of  this  principle,  the 
report  proceeds,  as  follows : 

"From  these  provisions,  it  is  apparent  that  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850 
affirm  and  rest  upon  the  following  propositions: 

"  First,  that  all  questions  pertaining  to  slavery  in  the  Territories,  and  in 
the  new  States  to  be  formed  therefrom,  are  to  be  left  to  the  decision  of  the 
people  residing  therein,  by  their  appropriate  representatives,  to  be  chosen  by 
them  for  that  purpose." 

And  in  conclusion,  the  report  proposes  a  substitute  for  the  bill 
introduced  by  the  senator  from  Iowa,  and  concludes  as  follows : 

"The  substitute  for  the  bill  which  your  committee  have  prepared,  and 
which  is  commended  to  the  favorable  action  of  the  Senate,  proposes  to  carry 
these  propositions  and  principles  into  practical  operation,  in  the  precise  lan 
guage  of  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850." 

Mr.  President,  as  there  has  been  so  much  misrepresentation  upor 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUG-LAS.  103 

this  point,  I  must  be  permitted  to  repeat  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
report  of  the  committee,  as  has  been  conclusively  proved  by  these 
extracts,  is — 

Fir^t,  That  the  whole  question  of  slavery  should  *be  withdrawn 
from  the  halls  of  Congress,  and  the  political  arena,  and  committed 
to  the  arbitrament  of  those  who  are  immediately  interested  in  and 
alone  responsible  for  its  existence. 

Second,  The  applying  this  principle  to  the  Territories  and  the  new 
States  to  be  formed  therefrom,  all  questions  pertaining  to  slavery 
were  to  be  referred  to  the  people  residing  therein. 

Third,  That  the  committee  proposed  to  carry  these  propositions 
and  principles  into  effect  in  the  precise  language  of  the  compromise 
measures  of  1850. 

Are  not  these  propositions  identical  with  the  principles  and  pro 
visions  of  the  bill  on  your  table  ?  If  there  is  a  hair's  breadth  of  dis 
crepancy  between  the  two,  I  ask  any  senator  to  rise  in  his  place  and 
point  it  out.  Both  rest  upon  the  great  principle,  which  forms  the 
basis  of  all  our  institutions,  that  the  people  are  to  decide  the  question 
for  themselves,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution. 

But  my  accusers  attempt  to  raise  up  a  false  issue,  and  thereby 
divert  public  attention  from  the  real  one,  by  the  cry  that  the  Mis 
souri  Compromise  is  to  be  repealed  or  violated  by  the  passage  of  this 
bill.  Well,  if  the  eighth  section  of  the  Missouri  Act,  which  attempted 
to  fix  the  destinies  of  future  generations  in  those  Territories  for  all 
time  to  come,  in  utter  disregard  of  the  rights  and  wishes  of  the 
people  when  they  should  be  received  into  the  Union  as  States,  be 
inconsistent  with  the  great  principle  of  self-government  and  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  it  ought  to  be  abrogated.  The 
legislation  of  1850  abrogated  the  Missouri  Compromise,  so  far  as  the 
country  embraced  within  the  limits  of  Utah  and  New  Mexico  was 
covered  by  the  slavery  restriction.  It  is  true,  that  those  acts  did 
not  in  terms  and  by  name  repeal  the  act  of  1820,  as  originally  adopted, 
or  as  extended  by  the  resolutions  annexing  Texas  in  1845,  any  more 
than  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Territories  proposes  to  repeal 
the  same  acts  this  session.  But  the  acts  of  1850  did  authorize  the 
people  of  those  Territories  to  exercise  *'  all  rightful  powers  of  legis 
lation  consistent  with  the  Constitution,"  not  excepting  the  question 
of  slavery ;  and  did  provide  that,  when  those  Territories  should  be 
admitted  into  the  Union,  they  should  be  received  with  or  with  -ut 
slavery  as  the  people  thereof  might  determine  at  the  date  of  their 
admission.  These  provisions  were  in  direct  conflict  with  a  clause  in 
a  former  enactment,  declaring  that  slavery  should  be  forever  pro 
hibited  in  any  portion  of  said  Territories,  and  hence  rendered  such 
clause  inoperative  and  void  to  the  extent  of  such  conflict.  This  was 
an  inevitable  consequence,  resulting  from  the  provisions  in  those 
acts  which  gave  the  people  the  right  to  decide  the  slavery  question 
for  themselves,  in  conformity  with  the  Constitution.  It  was  not 
necessary  to  go  further  and  declare  that  certain  previous  enactmenti. 


104  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

which  were  incompatible  with  the  exercise  of  the  powers  conferred 
in  the  bills,  "  are  hereby  repealed."  The  very  act  of  granting  those 
powers  and  rights  have  the  legal  effect  of  removing  all  obstructions 
to  the  exercise  of  them  by  the  people,  as  prescribed  in  those  Terri 
torial  bills.  Following  that  example,  the  Committee  on  Territories 
did  not  consider  it  necessary  to  declare  the  eighth  section  of  the 
Missouri  act  repealed.  We  were  content  to  organize  Nebraska  in 
the  precise  language  of  the  Utah  and  New  Mexican  bills.  Our 
object  was  to  leave  the  people  entirely  free  to  form  and  regulate  their 
domestic  institutions  and  internal  concerns  in  their  own  way,  under 
the  constitution ;  and  we  deemed  it  wise  to  accomplish  that  object 
in  the  exact  terms  in  which  the  same  thing  had  been  done  in  Utah 
and  New  Mexico  by  the  acts  of  1850.  This  was  the  principle  upon 
which  the  committee  reported ;  and  our  bill  was  supposed,  and  is 
now  believed,  to  have  been  in  accordance  with  it.  When  doubts 
were  raised  whether  the  bill  did  fully  carry  out  the  principle  laid 
down  in  the  report,  amendments  were  made,  from  time  to  time,  in 
order  to  avoid  all  misconstruction,  and  make  the  true  intent  of  the 
act  more  explicit.  The  last  of  these  amendments  was  adopted  yes 
terday,  on  the  motion  of  the  distinguished  senator  from  North 
Carolina  (Mr.  Badger),  in  regard  to  the  revival  of  any  laws  or 
regulations  which  may  haye  existed  prior  to  1820.  That  amendment 
was  not  intended  to  change  the  legal  effect  of  the  bill.  Its  object 
was  to  repel  the  slander  which  had  been  propagated  by  the  enemies 
of  the  measures  in  the  North,  that  the  southern  supporters  of  the 
bill  desired  to  legislate  slavery  into  these  Territories.  The  south 
denies  the  right  of  Congress  either  to  legislate  slavery  into  any 
Territory  or  State,  or  out  of  any  Territory  or  State.  Non-interven 
tion  by  Congress  with  slavery  in  the  States  or  Territories  is  the 
doctrine  of  the  bill,  and  all  the  amendments  which  have  been  agreed 
to  have  been  made  with  the  view  of  removing  all  doubts  and  cavil 
as  to  the  true  meaning  and  object  of  the  measure. 

Mr.  President,  I  think  I  have  succeeded  in  vindicating  myself  and 
the  action  of  the  committee  from  the  assaults  which  have  been  made 
upon  us  in  consequence  of  these  amendments.  It  seems  to  be  the 
tactics  of  our  opponents  to  direct  their  arguments  against  the  unim 
portant  points  and  incidental  questions  which  are  to  be  affected  by 
carrying  out  the  principle,  with  the  hope  of  relieving  themselves 
from  the  necessity  of  controverting  the  principle  itself.  The  senator 
from  Ohio  (Mr.  Chase)  led  off  gallantly  in  the  charge  that  the  com 
mittee,  in  the  report  and  bill  first  submitted,  did  not  contemplate  the 
repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise,  and  could  not  be  brought  to  that 
point  until  after  the  senator  from  Kentucky  offered  his  amendment. 
The  senator  from  Connecticut  (Mr.  Smith)  followed  his  lead,  and 
repeated  the  same  statement.  Then  came  the  other  senator  from 
Ohio  (Mr.  Ward),  and  the  senator  from  New  York  (Mr.  Seward), 
and  senator  from  Massachusetts  (Mr.  Sumner),  all  singing  the  same 
song,  only  varying  the  tune. 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  lOo 

Let  me  ask  those  senators  what  they  mean  by  this  statement  ? 
Do  they  wish  to  be  understood  as  saying  that  the  report  and  first 
form  of  the  bill  did  not  provide  for  leaving  the  slavery  question  to 
the  decision  of  the  people  in  the  terms  of  the  Utah  Bill  ?  Surely 
they  will  not  dare  to  say  that,  for  I  have  already  shown  that  the 
two  measures  were  identical  in  principle  and  enactment.  Do  they 
mean  to  say  that  the  adoption  of  our  first  bill  would  not  have  had 
the  legal  effect  to  have  rendered  the  eighth  section  of  the  Missouri 
Act  "inoperative  and  void,"  to  use  the  language  of  the  present  bill  ? 
If  this  be  not  their  meaning,  will  they  rise  in  their  places  and  inform 
the  Senate  what  their  meaning  wTas?  They  must  have  had  some 
object  in  giving  so  much  prominence  to  this  statement,  and  in  repeat 
ing  it  so  often.  I  address  the  question  to  the  senators  from  Ohio 
and  Massachusetts  (Mr.  Chase  and  Mr.  Sumner).  I  despair  in  extort 
ing  a  response  from  them ,  for,  no  matter  in  what  way  they  may 
answer  upon  this  point,  I  have  in  my  hand  the  evidence  over  their 
own  signatures,  to  disprove  the  truth  of  their  answer.  I  allude  to 
their  appeal  or  manifesto  to  the  people  of  the  United  States,  in  which 
they  arraign  the  bill  and  report,  in  coarse  and  savage  terms,  as  a 

E reposition  to  repeal  the  Missouri  Compromise,  to  violate  plighted 
lith,  to  abrogate  a  solemn  compact,  etc.  etc.  This  document  was 
signed  by  those  two  senators  in  their  official  capacity,  and  published 
to  the  world  before  any  amendments  had  been  offered  to  the  bill. 
It  was  directed  against  the  committee's  first  bill  and  report,  and 
against  them  alone.  If  the  statements  in  this  document  be  true, 
that  the  first  bill  did  repeal  the  eighth  section  of  the  Missouri  Act, 
what  are  we  to  think  of  the  statements  in  their  speeches  since,  that 
such  was  not  the  intention  of  the  committee,  was  not  the  recom 
mendation  of  the  report,  and  was  not  the  legal  effect  of  the  bill  ? 
On  the  contrary,  if  the  statements  in  their  subsequent  speeches  are 
true,  what  apology  do  those  senators  propose  to  make  to  the  Senate 
and  country  for  having  falsified  the  action  of  the  committee  in  a 
document  over  their  own  signatures,  and  thus  spread  a  false  alarm 
among  the  people,  and  misled  the  public  mind  in  respect  to  our  pro 
ceedings  ?  These  senators  cannot  avoid  the  one  or  the  other  of  these 
alternatives.  Let  them  seize  upon  either,  and  they  stand  condemned 
and  self-convicted ;  in  the  one  case  by  their  manifesto,  and  in  the 
other  by  their  speeches. 

In  fact,  it  is  clear  that  they  have  understood  the  bill  to  mean  the 
same  thing,  and  to  have  the  same  legal  effect  in  whatever  phase  it 
has  been  presented.  When  first  introduced,  they  denounced  it  as  a 
proposition  to  abrogate  the  Missouri  restriction.  "When  amended, 
they  repeated  the  same  denunciation,  and  so  on  each  successive 
amendment.  They  now  object  to  the  passage  of  the  bill  for  the  same 
reason,  thus  proving  conclusively  that  they  have  not  the  least  faith 
in  the  correctness  of  their  own  statements  in  respect  to  the  mutations 
and  changes  in  the  bill. 

They  seem  very  unwilling  to  meet  the  real  issue.     They  do  not 

5* 


106  THE      LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

like  to  discuss  the  principle.  There  seems  to  be  something  which 
strikes  them  with  terror  when  you  invite  their  attention  to  this  great 
fundamental  principle  of  popular  sovereignty.  Hence  you  find  that 
all  the  memorials  they  have  presented  are  against  repealing  the  Mis 
souri  Compromise,  and  in  favor  of  the  sanctity  of  compacts — in  favor 
of  preserving  plighted  faith.  The  senator  from  Ohio  is  cautious  to 
dedicate  his  speech  with  some  such  heading  as  "Maintain  Plighted 
Faith."  The  object  is  to  keep  the  attention  of  the  people  as  far  as 
possible  from  this  principle  of  self-government  and  constitutional 
rigl  its. 

Well,  sir.  what  is  this  Missouri  Compromise,  of  which  we  have 
heard  so  much  of  late  ?  It  has  been  read  so  often  that  it  is  not 
necessary  to  occupy  the  time  of  the  Senate  in  reading  it  again.  It 
was  an  act  of  Congress,  passed  on  the  6th  of  March,  1820,  to  author 
ize  the  people  of  Missouri  to  form  a  constitution  and  a  State  govern 
ment,  preparatory  to  the  admission  of  such  State  into  the  Union. 
The  first  section  provided  that  Missouri  should  be  received  into  the 
Union  '•  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original  States  in  all  respects 
whatsoever."  The  last  and  eighth  section  provided  that  slavery 
should  be  "  for  ever  prohibited  "  in  all  the  territory  which  had  been 
acquired  from  France  north  of  36°  30',  and  not  included  within  the 
limits  of  the  State  of  Missouri.  There  is  nothing  in  the  terms  of  the 
law  that  purports  to  be  a  compact,  or  indicates  that  it  was  anything 
more  than  an  ordinary  act  of  legislation.  To  prove  that  it  was  more 
than  it  purports  to  be  on  its  face,  gentlemen  must  produce  other 
evidence,  and  prove  that  there  was  such  an  understanding  as  to 
create  a  moral  obligation  in  the  nature  of  a  compact.  Have  they 
shown  it? 

I  have  heard  but  one  item  of  evidence  produced  during  this  whole 
debate,  and  that  was  a  short  paragraph  from  Niles's  Register,  pub 
lished  a  few  days  after  the  passage  of  the  act.  But  gentlemen  aver 
that  it  was  a  solemn  compact,  which  could  not  be  violated  or  abro 
gated  without  dishonor.  According  to  their  understanding,  the  con 
tract  was  that,  in  consideration  of  the  admission  of  Missouri  into  the 
Union,  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original  States  in  all  respects 
whatsoever,  slavery  should  be  prohibited  forever  in  the  Territories 
north  of  36°  30'.  Now,  who  were  the  parties  to  this  alleged  com 
pact  ?  They  tell  us  that  it  was  a  stipulation  between  the  North  and 
the  South.  Sir,  I  know  of  no  such  parties  under  the  Constitution. 
I  am  unwilling  that  there  shall  be  any  such  parties  known  in  our 
legislation.  If  there  is  such  a  geographical  line,  it  ought  to  be  obli 
terated  for  ever,  and  there  should  be  no  other  parties  than  those 
provided  for  in  the  Constitution,  viz. :  the  States  of  this  Union. 
These  are  the  only  parties  capable  of  contracting  under  the  Consti 
tution  of  the  United  States. 

Now,  if  this  was  a  compact,  let  us  see  how  it  was  entered  into. 
The  bill  originated  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  passed  that 
body  without  a  southern  vote  in  its  favor.  It  is  proper  to  remark, 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  107 

However,  that  it  did  not  at  that  time  contain  the  eighth  section,  pro 
hibiting  slavery  in  the  Territories  ;  but  in  lieu  of  it,  contained  a  pro 
vision  prohibiting  slavery  in  the  proposed  State  of  Missouri.  In  the 
Senate,  the  clause  prohibiting  slavery  in  the  State  was  stricken  out, 
and  the  eighth  section  added  to  the  end  of  the  bill,  by  the  terms  of 
which  slavery  was  to  be  forever  prohibited  in  the  Territory  not 
embraced  in  the  State  of  Missouri  north  of  36°  30'.  The  vote  on 
adding  this  section  stood,  in  the  Senate,  34  in  the  affirmative,  and  10 
in  the  negative.  Of  the  northern  senators,  20  voted  for  it  and  2 
against  it.  On  the  question  of  ordering  the  bill  to  a  third  reading  as 
amended,  which  was  the  test  vote  on  its  passage,  the  vote  stood  24 
yeas  and  20  nays.  Of  the  northern  senators,  ~4=  only  voted  in  the 
affirmative,  and  18  in  the  negative.  Thus  it  will  be  seen  that,  if  it 
was  intended  to  be  a  compact,  the  North  never  agreed  to  it.  The 
northern  senators  voted  to  insert  the  prohibition  of  slavery  in  the 
Territories ;  and  then,  in  the  proportion  of  more  than  four  to  one 
voted  'against  the  passage  of  the  bill.  The  North,  therefore,  never 
signed  the  compact,  never  consented  to  it,  never  agreed  to  be  bound 
by  it.  This  fact  becomes  very  important  in  vindicating  the  character 
of  the  North  for  repudiating  this  alleged  compromise  a  few  months 
afterward.  The  act  was  approved  and  became  a  law  on  the  6th  of 
March,  1820.  In  the  summer  of  that  year,  the  people  of  Missouri 
formed  a  constitution  and  State  government,  preparatory  to  admis 
sion  into  the  Union,  in  conformity  with  the  act.  At  the  next  session 
of  Congress  the  Senate  passed  a  joint  resolution,  declaring  Missouri 
to  be  one  of  the  States  of  the  Union,  on  an  equal  footing  with  the 
original  States.  This  resolution  was  sent  to  the  House  of  Represen 
tatives,  where  it  was  rejected  by  northern  votes,  and  thus  Missouri 
was  voted  out  of  the  Union,  instead  of  being  received  into  the  Union 
under  the  act  of  the  6th  of  March,  1820,  now  known  as  the  Missouri 
Compromise.  Now,  sir,  what  becomes  of  our  plighted  faith,  if  the 
act  of  the  6th  of  March,  1820,  was  a  solemn  compact,  as  we  are  now 
told  ?  They  have  all  rung  the  changes  upon  it,  that  it  was  a  sacred 
and  irrevocable  compact,  binding  in  honor,  in  conscience,  and  morals, 
which  could  not  be  violated  or  repudiated  without  perfidy  and  dis 
honor  !  The  two  senators  from  Ohio  (Mr.  Chase  and  Mr.  Wade), 
the  senator  from  Massachusetts  (Mr.  Simmer),  the  senator  from  Con 
necticut  (Mr.  Smith),  the  senator  from  New  York  (Mr.  Seward),  and 
perhaps  others,  have  all  assumed  this  position. 

ME.  SEWAED. — Whoever  will  refer  to  my  antecedents  will  find 
that  in  the  year  1850  I  expressed  opinions  on  the  subject  of  legisla 
tive  compromises  between  the  North  and  South,  which,  at  that  day 
were  rejected  and  repudiated. 

ME.  DOUGLAS. — If  the  object  of  the  senator  is  to  go  hack,  and  go 
through  all  his  opinions,  I  cannot  yield  the  floor  to  him  ;  but  if  his 
object  is  now  to  show  that  the  North  did  not  violate  the  Missouri 
compromise,  I  will  yield. 

ME.  SEWAED. — If  the  honorable  senator  will  allow   me  just  one 


108  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

inin ute  and  a  half,  without  dictating  what  I  shall  say  within  that 
minute  and  a  half,  I  shall  be  satisfied. 

MR.  DOUGLAS. — Certainly,  I  will  consent  to  that. 

MR.  SEWARD. — I  find  that  the  honorable  senator  from  Illinois  is 
standing  upon  the  ground  upon  which  I  stood  in  1850.  I  have 
nothing  to  say  now  in  favor  of  that  ground.  On  this  occasion,  I 
stand  upon  the  ground,  in  regard  to  compromises,  which  has  been 
adopted  by  the  country.  Then,  when  the  senator  tells  me  that  the 
North  did  not  altogether,  willingly,  and  unanimously,  consent  to  the 
compromise  of  1820,  I  agree  to  it ;  but  I  have  been  overborne  in  the 
country,  on  the  ground  that  if  one  northern  man  carried  with  him  a 
majority  of  Congress  he  bound  the  whole  North.  And  so  I  hold  in 
regard  to  the  compromise  of  1820,  that  it  was  carried  by  a  vote 
which  has  been  held  by  the  South  and  by  the  honorable  senator 
from  Illinois  to  bind  the  North.  The  South  having  received  their 
consideration  and  equivalent,  I  only  hold  him,  upon  his  own  doctrine 
and  the  doctrine  of  the  South,  bound  to  stand  to  it.  That  is  all  I 
have  to  say  upon  that  point. 

A  few  words  more  will  cover  all  that  I  have  to  say  about  what 
the  honorable  senator  may  say  hereafter  as  to  the  North  repudiating 
this  contract.  When  I  was  absent,  I  understood  the  senator  alluded 
to  the  fact  that  my  name  appeared  upon  a  paper  which  was  issued 
by  the  honorable  senator  from  Ohio,  and  some  other  members  of 
Congress,  to  the  people,  on  the  subject  of  this  bill.  Upon  that  point 
it  has  been  my  intention  throughout  to  leave  to  the  honorable 
senator  from  Illinois,  and  those  who  act  with  him,  whatever  there 
is  of  merit,  and  whatever  there  is  of  responsibility  for  the  present 
measure,  and  for  all  the  agitation  and  discussion  upon  it.  Therefore, 
as  soon  as  I  found,  when  I  returned  to  the  Capitol,  that  my  name 
was  on  that  paper,  I  caused  it  to  be  made  known  and  published,  as 
fully  and  extensively  as  I  could,  that  I  had  never  been  consulted  in 
regard  to  it ;  that  I  know  nothing  about  it ;  and  that  the  merit  of 
the  measure,  as  well  as  the  responsibility,  belonged  to  the  honorable 
senator  from  Ohio,  and  those  who  cooperated  with  him  ;  and  that  I 
had  never  seen  the  paper  on  which  he  commented ;  nor  have  I  in 
any  way  addressed  the  public  upon  the  subject. 

MB.  DOUGLAS. — I  wish  to  ask  the  senator  from  New  York  a  question. 
If  I  understood  his  remarks  when  he  spoke,  and  if  I  understand  his 
speech  as  published,  he  averred  that  the  Missouri  Compromise  was  a 
compact  between  the  North  and  the  South  ;  that  the  North  performed 
it  on  its  part ;  that  it  had  done  so  faithfully  for  thirty  years  ;  that 
the  South  had  received  all  its  benefits,  and  the  moment  these  benefits 
had  been  fully  realized,  the  South  disavowed  the  obligations  under 
which  it  had  received  them.  Is  not  that  his  position? 

MR.  SEWAKD. — I  am  not  accustomed  to  answer  questions  put  to  me, 
unless  they  are  entirely  categorical,  and  placed  in  such  a  shape  that 
I  may  know  exactly,  and  have  time  to  consider,  their  whole  extent 
The  honorable  senator  from  Illinois  has  put  a  very  broad  question 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  109 

What  I  mean  to  say,  however,  and  that  will  answer  his  purpose,  is, 
that  his  position,  and  that  the  position  of  the  South  is,  that  this  was 
a  compromise ;  and  I  say  that  the  North  has  never  repudiated  that 
compromise.  Indeed,  it  has  never  had  the  power  to  do  so.  Missouri 
came  into  the  Union,  and  Arkansas  came  into  the  Union,  under  that 
compromise ;  and,  whatever  individuals  may  have  said,  whatever 
individuals,  more  or  less  humhle  than  myself,  may  have  contended, 
the  practical  effect  is,  that  the  South  has  had  all  that  she  could  get 
by  that  compromise,  and  that  the  North  is  now  in  the  predicament 
of  being  obliged  to  defend  what  was  left  to  her.  I  believe  that 
answers  the  question. 

ME.  DOUGLAS. — Now,  Mr.  President,  I  choose  to  bring  men  directly 
up  to  this  point.  The  senator  from  New  York  has  labored  in  his 
whole  speech  to  make  it  appear  that  this  was  a  compact ;  that  the 
North  had  been  faithful ;  and  that  the  South  acquiesced  until  she  got 
all  its  advantages,  and  then  disavowed  and  sought  to  annul  it.  This 
he  pronounced  to  be  bad  faith  ;  and  he  made  appeals  about  disorder. 
The  senator  from  Connecticut  (Mr.  Smith)  did  the  same  thing,  and 
so  did  the  senator  from  Massachusetts  (Mr.  Sumner),  and  the  senator 
from  Ohio  (Mr.  Chase).  That  is  the  point  to  which  the  whole  aboli 
tion  party  are  now  directing  all  their  artillery  in  this  battle.  Now, 
I  propose  to  bring  them  to  the  point.  If  this  was  a  compact,  and  if 
what  they  have  said  is  fair,  or  just,  or  true,  who  was  it  that  repudi 
ated  the  compact  ? 

MR.  SUMXER. — Mr.  President,  the  senator  from  Illinois,  I  know,  does 
not  intend  to  misstate  my  position.  That  position,  as  announced  in 
the  language  of  the  speech  which  I  addressed  to  the  Senate,  and 
which  I  now  hold  in  my  hand,  is,  "this  is  an  infraction  of  solemn 
obligations,  assumed  beyond  recall  by  the  South,  on  the  admission  of 
Missouri  into  the  Union  as  a  slave  State ;"  which  was  one  year  after 
the  act  of  1820. 

MR.  DOUGLAS. — Mr.  President,  I  shall  corne  to  that ;  and  I  wish  to 
see  whether  this  was  an  obligation  which  was  assumed  '•  beyond 
recall."  If  it  was  a  compact  between  the  two  parties,  one  party  has 
been  faithful,  it  is  beyond  recall  by  the  other.  If,  however,  one  party 
has  been  faithless,  what  shall  we  think  of  them,  if,  while  faithless, 
they  ask  a  performance  ? 

MR.  SEWARD. — Show  it. 

MR.  DOUGLAS. — That  is  what  I  am  coming  to.  I  have  already 
stated  that,  at  the  next  session  of  Congress,  Missouri  presented  a 
constitution  in  conformity  with  the  act  of  1820  ;  that  the  Senate  passed 
a  joint  resolution  to  admit  her ;  and  that  the  House  refused  to  admit 
Missouri  in  conformity  with  the  alleged  compact,  and,  I  think,  on 
three  distinct  votes,  rejected  her. 

ME.  SEWARD. — I  beg  my  honorable  friend,  for  I  desire  to  call  him 
so,  to  answer  me  frankly  whether  he  would  rather  I  should  say  what 
I  have  to  say  in  this  desultory  way,  or  whether  he  would  prefer  that  1 
should  answer  him  afterward ;  because  it  is  with  me  a  rule  in  the  Se 
nate  never  to  interrupt  a  gentleman,  except  to  help  him  in  his  argument 


110  THE     LIFE     AND      SPEECHES      OF 

MR.  DOUGLAS. — I  would  rather  hear  the  senator  now. 

ME.  SEWARD. — What  I  have  to  say  now,  and  I  acknowledge  the 
magnanimity  of  the  senator  from  Illinois  in  allowing  me  to  say  it,  is, 
that  the  North  stood  by  that  compact  until  Missouri  came  in  with  a 
constitution,  one  article  of  which  denied  to  colored  citizens  of  other 
States  the  equality  of  privileges  which  were  allowed  to  all  other 
citizens  of  the  United  Sates,  and  then  the  North  insisted  on  the  right 
of  colored  men  to  be  regarded  as  citizens,  and  entitled  to  the  privi 
leges  and  immunities  of  citizens.  Upon  that  a  new  compromise  was 
necessary.  I  hope  I  am  candid. 

MR.  DOUGLAS. — The  senator  is  candid,  I  have  no  doubt,  as  he 
understands  the  facts  ;  but  I  undertake  to  maintain  that  the  North 
objected  to  Missouri  because  she  allowed  slavery,  and  not  because  of 
the  free-negro  clause  alone. 

MR.  SEWARD. — No  sir. 

MR.  DOUGLAS. — Now  I  will  proceed  to  prove  that  the  North  did 
not  object,  solely  on  account  of  the  free-negro  clause ;  but  that  in 
House  of  Representatives  at  that  time,  the  North  objected  as  well 
because  of  slavery  as  in  regard  to  free  negroes.  Here  is  the  evidence. 
In  the  House  of  Representatives,  on  the  12th  of  February,  1821,  Mr. 
Mallory,  of  Vermont,  Amoved  to  amend  the  Senate  joint  resolution 
for  the  admission  of  Missouri,  as  follows : 

"  To  amend  the  said  amendment,  by  striking  out  all  thereof  after  the  words 
respects,  and  inserting  the  following  :  '  Whenever  people  of  the  said  State,  by 
a  convention,  appointed  according  to  the  manner  provided  by  the  act  to  autho 
rize  the  people  of  Missouri  to  form  a  constitution  and  State  government,  and 
for  the  admission  of  such  State  into  the  Union  on  an  equal  footing  with  the 
original  States,  and  to  prohibit  slavery  in  certain  Territories,  approved  March- 
6,  1820,  adopt  a  constitution  conformably  to  the  provisions  of  said  act,  and 
shall,  ix  ADDITION  to  said  provisions,  further  provide,  in  and  by  said  constitution, 
that  neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude  shall  ever  be  allowed  in  said  State  of 
Missouri,  unless  inflicted  as  a  punishment  for  crimes  committed  against  the 
laws  of  said  State,  whereof  the  party  accused  shall  be  duly  convicted  :  Pro 
vided,  That  the  civil  condition  of  those  persons  who  now  are  held  to  service  in 
Missouri  shall  not  be  affected  by  this  last  prevision.' " 

Here  I  show,  then,  that  the  proposition  was  made  that  Missouri 
should  not  come  in  unless,  in  addition  to  complying  with  the  Mis 
souri  Compromise,  so  called,  she  would  go  further,  and  prohibit 
slavery  within  the  limits  of  the  State. 

MR.  SEWARD. — Now,  then,  for  the  vote. 

MR.  DOUGLAS.-: — The  vote  was  taken  by  yeas  and  nays.  I  hold  it 
in  my  hand.  Sixty-one  northern  men  voted  for  that  amendment, 
and  thirty-three  against  it.  Thus  the  North,  by  a  vote  of  nearly  two 
to  one,  expressly  repudiated  a  solemn  compact  upon  the  very  matter 
in  controversy,  to  wit :  that  slavery  should  not  be  prohibited  in  the 
State  of  Missouri. 

MR.  WELLEE. — Let  the  senator  from  New  York  answer  that. 

MR.  DOUGLAS. — I  should  like  to  hear  his  answer. 

MR.  SEWARD. — I  desire,  if  I  shall  be  obtrusive  by  speaking  in  this 
way,  that  senators  will  at  once  signify,  or  that  any  senator  will  sig^- 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  Ill 

nify,  that  lam  obtrusive.  But  I  make  these  explanations  in  this 
Tray,  for  the  reason  that  I  desire  to  give  the  honorable  senator  from 
Illinois  the  privilege  of  hearing  my  answer  to  him  as  he  goes  along.  It 
is  simply  this :  That  this  doctrine  of  compromises  is,  as  it  has  been 
held,  that  if  so  many  northern  men  shall  go  with  so  many  southern 
men  as  to  fix  the  law,  then  it  binds  the  North  and  South  alike.  I  there 
fore  have  but  one  answer  to  make :  the  vote  for  the  restriction  was 
less  than  the  northern  vote  given  against  the  compromise. 

ME.  DOUGLAS. — Well,  now,  we  come  to  this  point :  We  have  been 
told,  during  this  debate,  that  you  must  not  judge  of  the  North  by  the 
minority,  but  by  the  majority.  You  have  been  told,  that  the  mi 
nority,  who  stood  by  the  Constitution  and  the  rights  of  the  South, 
were  dough-faces. 

ME.  SEWAED. — I  have  not  said  so.    I  will  not  say  so. 

ME.  DOUGLAS. — You  have  all  said  so  in  your  speeches,  and  you 
have  asked  us  to  take  the  majority  of  the  North. 

ME.  SEWAED. — I  spoke  of  the  practical  fact.  I  never  said  anything 
about  dough-faces. 

ME.  DOUGLAS. — You  have  asked  us  to  take  the  majority  instead  of 
the  minority. 

ME.  SEWAED. — The  majority  of  the  country. 

ME.  DOUGLAS. — I  am  talking  of  the  majority  of  the  northern  vote. 

ME.  SEWAED. — No,  sir. 

ME.  DOUGLAS. — I  hope  the  senator  will  hear  me.  I  wish  to  recall  him 
to  the  issue.  1  stated  that  the  North  in  the  House  of  Eepresentatives 
voted  against  admitting  Missouri  into  the  Union  under  the  act  of 
1820,  and  caused  the  defeat  of  that  measure;  and  he  said  that  they 
voted  against  it  on  the  ground  of  the  free-negro  clause  in  her  consti 
tution,  and  not  upon  the  ground  of  slavery.  Now,  I  have  shown  by, 
the  evidence  that  it  was  upon  the  ground  of  slavery,  as  well  as  upon  '. 
the  other  ground ;  and  that  a  majority  of  the  North  required  not  I 
only  that  Missouri  should  comply  with  the  compact  of  1820,  so  | 
called,  but  that  she  should  go  further,  and  give  up  the  whole  consi 
deration  which  the  senator  says  the  South  received  from  the  North 
for  the  Missouri  Compromise.  The  compact,  he  says,  was  that,  in  j 
consideration  of  slavery  being  permitted  in  Missouri,  it  should  be 
prohibited  in  the  Territories.  After  having  procured  the  prohibition 
in  the  Territories,  the  North,  by  a  majority  of  votes,  refused  to 
admit  Missouri  as  a  slaveholding  State,  and  in  violation  of  the  alleged 
compact,  required  her  to  prohibit  slavery  as  a  further  condition  of 
her  admission.  This  repudiation  of  the  alleged  compact  by  the  North 
is  recorded  by  yeas  and  nays,  sixty-one  to  thirty-three,  and  entered 
upon  the  Journal,  as  an  imperishable  evidence  of  the  fact.  With  this 
evidence  before  us,  against  whom  should  the  charge  of  perfidy  be 
preferred  ? 

Hlr,  if  this  was  a  compact,  what  must  be  thought  of  those  who 
violated  it  almost  immediately  after  it  was  formed  ?  I  say  it  was  a 
calumny  upon  the  North  to  say  that  it  was  a  compact :  I  should  feel 


1  THE     LIFE     AND      SPEECHES     OF 

a  flush  of  shame  upon  my  cheek,  as  a  northern  man,  if  I  were  to  say 
that  it  was  a  compact,  and  that  the  section  of  the  country  to  which 
I  belong  received  the  consideration,  and  then  repudiated  the  obliga 
tion  in  eleven  months  after  it  was  entered  into.  I  deny  that  it  was  a 
compact  in  any  sense  of  the  term.  But  if  it  was,  the  record  proves 
that  faith  was  not  observed ;  that  the  contract  was  never  carried 
into  eifect ;  that  after  the  North  had  procured  the  passage  of  the 
act  prohibiting  slavery  in  the  Territories,  with  a  majority  in  the 
House  large  enough  to  prevent  its  repeal,  Missouri  was  refused  admis 
sion  into  the  Union  as  a  slaveholding  State,  in  conformity  with  the 
act  of  March  6,  1820.  If  the  proposition  be  correct,  as  contended 
for  by  the  opponents  of  this  bill,  that  there  was  a  solemn  compact 
between  the  North  and  the  South,  that,  in  consideration  of  the  pro 
hibition  of  slavery  in  the  Territories,  Missouri  was  to  be  admitted 
into  the  Union  in  conformity  with  the  act  of  1820,  that  compact  was 
repudiated  by  the  North  and  rescinded  by  the  joint  action  of  the 
two  parties  within  twelve  months  from  its  date.  Missouri  was  never 
admitted  under  the  act  of  the  6th  of  March,  1820.  She  was  refused 
admission  under  that  act.  She  was  voted  out  of  the  Union  by 
northern  votes,  notwithstanding  the  stipulation  that  she  should  bo 
received  ;  and,  in  consequence  of  these  facts,  a  new  compromise  was 
rendered  necessary,  by  the  terms  of  which  Missouri  was  to  be  ad 
mitted  into  the  Union  conditionally — admitted  on  a  condition  not 
embraced  in  the  act  of  1820,  and,  in  addition,  to  full  compliance 
with  all  the  provisions  of  said  act.  If,  then,  the  act  of  1820,  by  the 
eighth  section  of  which  slavery  was  prohibited  in  the  Territories, 
was  a  compact,  it  is  clear  to  the  comprehension  of  every  fair-minded 
inn.ii  that  the  refusal  of  the  North  to  admit  Missouri,  in  compli 
ance  with  its  stipulations,  and  without  further  conditions,  imposes 
upon  us  a  high  moral  obligation  to  remove  the  prohibition  of  slavery 
in  the  Territories,  since  it  has  been  shown  to  have  been  procured 
upon  a  condition  never  performed. 

Mr.  President,  inasmuch  as  the  senator  from  New  York  has  taken 
great  pains  to  impress  upon  the  public  mind  of  the  North  the  con 
viction  that  the  act  of  1820  was  a  solemn  compact,  the  violation  or 
repudiation  of  which  by  either  party  involves  perfidy  and  dishonor, 
I  wish  to  call  the  attention  of  that  senator  (Mr.  Seward)  to  the  fact, 
that  his  own  State  was  the  first  to  repudiate  the  compact  and  to 
instruct  her  senators  in  Congress  not  to  admit  Missouri  into  the 
Union  in  compliance  with  it,  nor  unless  slavery  should  be  prohibited 
in  the  State  of  Missouri. 

MR.  SEWARD. — That  is  so. 

MR.  DOUGLAS. — I  have  the  resolutions  before  me,  in  the  printed 
Journal  of  the  Senate.  The  senator  from  New  York  is  familiar  with 
the  fact,  and  frankly  admits  it: 

"STATE  OF  NKW  YORK,  I 

IN  ASSEMBLY,  November  13, 1820.  f 
"  Whereas  the  legislature  of  this  State,  at  the  last  session,  did  instruct,  theif 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  113 

senators  and  request  their  representatives  in  Congress  to  oppose  the  admission, 
as  a  State,  into  the  Union,  of  any  territory  not  comprised  within  the  original 
boundaries  of  the  United  States,  without  making  the  prohibition  of  slavery 
therein  an  indispensable  condition  of  admission  ;  and  whereas  this  legislature 
is  impressed  with  the  correctness  of  the  sentiments  so  communicated  to  our 
senators  and  representatives  :  Therefore — 

"  Resolved  (if  the  honorable  the  Senate  concur  herein),  That  this  legislature 
does  approve  of  the  principles  contained  in  the  resolutions  of  the  last  session  ; 
and  further,  if  the  provisions  contained  in  any  proposed  constitution  of  a  new 
State  deny  to  any  citizens  of  the  existing  States  the  privileges  and  immunities 
of  citizens  of  such  new  State,  that  such  proposed  constitution  should  not  be 
accepted  or  confirmed  ;  the  same,  in  the  opinion  of  this  legislature,  being  void 
by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  And  that  our  senators  be  instructed, 
and  our  representatives  in  Congress  be  requested,  to  use  their  utmost  exer 
tions  to  prevent  the  acceptance  and  confirmation  of  any  such  constitution." 

It  will  be  seen  by  these  resolutions,  that  at  the  previous  session 
the  New  York  legislature  had  "  instructed  "  the  senators  from  that 
State  "  to  oppose  the  admission,  as  a  State,  into  the  Union  of  any 
territory  not  comprised  within  the  original  boundaries  of  the  United 
States,  without  making  the  prohibition  of  slavery  therein  an  indis 
pensable  condition  of  admission." 

These  instructions  are  not  confined  to  territory  north  of  36°  80'. 
They  apply,  and  were  intended  to  apply,  to  the  whole  territory  west 
of  the  Mississippi,  and  to  all  territory  which  might  hereafter  be 
acquired.  They  deny  the  right  of  Arkansas  to  admission  as  a  slave- 
holding  State,  as  well  as  Missouri.  They  lay  down  a  general  princi 
ple  to  be  applied  and  insisted  upon  everywhere,  and  in  all  cases,  arid 
under  all  circumstance??.  These  resolutions  were  first  adopted  prior 
to  the  passage  of  the  act  of  March  6,  1820,  which  the  senator  now 
chooses  to  call  a  compact.  But  they  were  renewed  and  repeated  on 
the  13th  of  November,  1820,  a  little  more  than  eight  months  after 
the  Missouri  Compromise,  as  instructions  to  the  New  York  senators 
to  resist  the  admission  of  Missouri  as  a  slaveholding  State,  notwith 
standing  the  stipulations  in  the  alleged  compact.  Now,  let  me  ask 
the  senator  from  New  York  by  what  authority  he  declared  and  pub 
lished  in  his  speech  that  the  act  of  1820,  was  a  compact  which  could 
not  be  violated  or  repudiated  without  a  sacrifice  of  honor,  justice 
and  good  faith.  Perhaps  he  will  shelter  himself  behind  the  resolu 
tions  of  his  State,  which  he  presented  this  session,  branding  this  bill 
as  a  violation  of  plighted  faith. 

ME.  SEWAUD. — Will  the  senator  allow  me  a  word  of  explanation  ? 

ME.  DOUGLAS. — Certainly,  with  a  great  deal  of  pleasure. 

ME.  SEWARD. — I  wTish  simply  to  say  that  the  State  of  New  York, 
for  now  thirty  years,  has  refused  to  make  any  compact  on  any  terms 
by  which  a  concession  should  be  made  for  the  extension  of  slavery. 
But,  by  the  practical  action  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States, 
compromises  have  been  made,  which,  if  is  held  by  the  honorable 
senator  from  Illinois  and  by  the  South,  bind  her  against  her  consent 
and  approval.  And,  therefore,  she  stands  throughout  this  wholo 
matter  upon  the  same  ground — always  refusing  to  enter  into  a^om 


114:  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

promise,  always  insisting  upon  the  prohibition  of  slavery  within  the 
Territories  of  the  United  States.  But,  on  this  occasion,  we  stand 
here  with  a  contract  which  has  stood  for  30  years,  notwithstanding 
our  protest  and  dissent,  and  in  which  there  is  nothing  left  to  be  ful 
filled  except  that  part  which  is  to  be  beneficial  to  us.  All  the  rest  has 
been  fulfilled,  and  we  stand  here  with  our  old  opinions  on  the  whole 
subject  of  compromises,  demanding  fulfillment  on  the  part  of  the 
South,  which  the  honorable  senator  from  Illinois  on  the  present 
occasion  represents. 

ME.  DOUGLAS. — Mr.  President,  the  senator  undoubtedly  speaks  for 
himself  very  frankly  and  very  candidly. 

MK.  SEWAED. — Certainly  I  do. 

Mu.  DOUGLAS. — But  I  deny  that  on  this  point  he  speaks  for  the 
State  of  New  York. 

ME.  SEWAED. — We  shall  see. 

MR.  DOUGLAS. — I  will  state  the  reason  why  I  say  so.  He  has  pre 
sented  here  resolutions  of  this  State  of  New  York  which  have  been 
adopted  this  year,  declaring  the  act  of  March  6, 1820,  to  be  a  "  solemn 
compact." 

I  read  from  the  second  resolution  : 

"  But  at  the  same  time  duty  to  them&elves  and  to  the  other  Stales  of  the 
Union  demands  that  when  an  effort  is  making  to  violate  a  solemn  compact 
whereby  the  political  power  of  the  State  and  the  privileg-es  as  well  as  the 
honest  sentiments  of  its  citizens  will  be  jeoparded  and  invaded,  they  should 
raise  Iheir  voice  in  protest  against  the  threatened  infraction  of  their  rights, 
and  declare  that  the  negation  or  repeal  by  Congress  of  the  Missouri  Compro 
mise  will  be  regarded  by  them  as  a  violation  of  right  and  of  faith,  and  destruc 
tive  of  that  confidence  and  regard  which  should  attach,  to  the  enactment  of  the 
federal  legislature." 

Mr.  President,  I  cannot  let  the  senator  off  on  the  plea  that  I,  for 
the  sake  of  the  argument,  in  reply  to  him  and  other  opponents  of 
tliis  bill,  have  called  it  a  compact ;  or  that  the  South  have  called  it 
a  compact ;  or  that  other  friends  of  Nebraska  have  called  it  a  com 
pact  which  has  been  violated  and  rendered  invalid.  He  and  his 
abolition  confederates  have  arraigned  me  for  a  violation  of  a  com 
pact,  which,  they  say,  is  binding  in  morals,  in  conscience  and  honor. 
I  have  shown  that  the  legislature  of  New  York,  at  its  present  session, 
has  declared  it  to  be  "  a  solemn  compact,"  and  that  its  repudiation 
would  "  be  regarded  by  them  as  a  violation  of  right,  and  of  faith, 
and  destructive  of  confidence  and  regard."  I  have  also  shown,  that 
if  it  be  such  a  compact,  the  State  of  New  York  stands  self-con 
demned  and  self-convicted  as  the  first  to  repudiate  and  violate  it. 

But  since  the  senator  has  chosen  to  make  an  issue  with  me  in 
respect  to  the  action  of  New  York,  with  the  view  of  condemning  my 
conduct  here,  I  will  invite  the  attention  of  the  senator  to  another 
portion  of  these  resolutions.  Referring  to  the  fourteenth  section  of 
the  Nebraska  Bill,  the  legislature  of  New  York  says: 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  115 

"  That  the  adoption  of  this  provision  would  be  in  derogation  of  the  truth,  a 
gross  violation  of  plighted  faith,  and  an  outrage  and  indignity  upon  the  free 
States  of  the  Union,  whose  assent  has  been  yielded  to  the  admission  into  the 
Union  of  Missouri  and  of  Arkansas,  with  slavery,  in  reliance  upon  the  faithful 
observance  of  the  provision  (now  sought  to  be  abrogated)  known  as  the  Mis 
souri  Compromise,  whereby  slavery  was  declared  to  be  "forever  prohibited 
in  all  that  territory  ceded  by  France  to  the  United  States,  under  the  name  of 
Louisiana,  which  lies  north  of  36°  30'  north  latitude,  not  included  within  the 
limits  of  the  State  of  Missouri." 

I  have  no  comments  to  make  upon  the  courtesy  and  propriety 
exhibited  in  this  legislative  declaration,  that  a  provision  in  a  bill, 
reported  by  a  regular  committee  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States, 
and  known  to  be  approved  by  three-fourths  of  the  body,  and  which 
has  since  received  the  sanction  of  their  votes,  is  "in  derogation  of 
truth,  a  gross  violation  of  plighted  faith,  and  an  outrage  and  indig 
nity,"  etc.  The  opponents  of  this  measure  claim  a  monopoly  of  all 
the  courtesies  and  amenities,  which  should  be  observed  among  gen 
tlemen,  and  especially  in  the  performance  of  official  duties ;  and  I 
am  free  to  say  that  this  is  one  of  the  mildest  and  most  respectful 
forms  of  expression  in  which  they  have  indulged.  But  there  is  a 
declaration  in  this  resolution  to  which  I  wish  to  invite  the  particular 
attention  of  the  Senate  and  the  country.  It  is  the  distinct  allega 
tion  that  "the  free  States  of  the  Union,"  including  New  York, 
yield  their  "  assent  to  the  admission  into  the  Union  of  Missouri  and 
Arkansas,  with  slavery,  in  reliance  upon  the  faithful  observance  of 
the  provision  known  as  the  Missouri  Compromise." 

Now,  sir,  since  the  legislature  of  New  York  has  gone  out  of  its 
way  to  arraign  the  State  on  matters  of  truth,  I  will  demonstrate 
that  this  paragraph  contains  two  material  statements  in  direct 
"  derogation  of  truth."  I  have  already  shown,  beyond  controversy, 
by  the  records  of  the  legislature  and  by  the  journals  of  the  Senate, 
that  New  York  never  did  give  her  assent  to  the  admission  of  Mis 
souri  with  slavery!  Hence,  I  must  be  permitted  to  say,  in  the 
polite  language  of  her  own  resolutions,  that  the  statement  that  New 
York  yielded  her  assent  to  the  admission  of  Missouri  with  slavery  is 
in  "derogation  of  truth!"  and,  secondly,  the  statement  that  such 
assent  was  given  "  in  reliance  upon  the  faithful  observance  of  the 
Missouri  Compromise  "  is  equally  "  in  derogation  of  truth."  New 
York  never  assented  to  the  admission  of  Missouri  as  a  slave  State, 
never  assented  to  what  she  now  calls  the  Missouri  Compromise, 
never  observed  its  stipulations  as  a  compact,  never  had  been  willing 
to  carry  it  out ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  has  always  resisted  it,  as  I 
have  demonstrated  by  her  own  records. 

Mr.  President,  I  have  before  me  other  journals,  records  and  in 
structions,  which  prove  that  New  York  was  not  the  only  free  State 
that  repudiated  the  Missouri  Compromise  of  1820  within  twelve 
months  from  its  date.  I  will  not  occupy  the  time  of  the  Senate  at 
this  late  hour  of  the  night  by  referring  to  them,  unless  some  oppo 
nent  of  the  bill  renders  it  necessary.  In  that  event,  I  may  be  ablo 


116  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

to  place  other  senators  and  their  States  in  the  same  unenviable  posi 
tion  in  which  the  senator  from  New  York  has  found  himself  and  hia 
State. 

I  think  I  have  shown,  that  to  call  the  act  of  the  6th  of  March, 
1820,  a  compact,  binding  in  honor,  is  to  charge  the  northern  States 
of  this  Union  with  an  act  of  perfidy  unparalleled  in  the  history  of 
legislation  or  of  civilization.  I  have  already  adverted  to  the  facts, 
that  in  the  summer  of  1820  Missouri  framed  her  constitution,  in  con 
formity  with  the  act  of  the  Oth  of  March  ;  that  it  was  presented  to 
Congress  at  the  next  session;  that  the  Senate  passed  a  joint  resolu 
tion  declaring  her  to  be  one  of  the  States  of  the  Union,  on  an  equal 
footing  with  the  original  States ;  and  that  the  Ilouse  of  Representa 
tives  rejected  it,  and  refused  to  allow  her  to  come  into  the  Union, 
because  her  constitution  did  not  prohibit  slavery. 

These  facts  created  the  necessity  for  a  new  compromise,  the  old 
one  having  failed  of  its  object,  which  was,  to  bring  Missouri  into  the 
Union.  At  this  period  in  the  order  of  events — in  February,  1821, 
when  the  exc'itement  was  almost  beyond  restraint,  and  a  great  fun 
damental  principle,  involving  the  right  of  the  people  of  the  new 
States  1o  regulate  their  own  domestic  institutions,  was  dividing  ihe 
Union  into  two  great  hostile  parties — Henry  Clay,  of  Kentucky, 
came  forward  with  a  new  compromise,  which  had  the  effect  to 
change  the  issue,  and  make  the  result  of  the  controversy  turn 
upon  a  different  point,  lie  brought  in  a  resolution  for  the  admission 
of  Missouri  into  the  Union,  not  in  pursuance  of  the  act  of  1820,  not 
in  obedience  to  the  understanding  when  it  was  adopted,  and  not 
with  her  constitution  as  it  had  been  formed  in  conformity  with  that 
act,  but  he  proposed  to  admit  Missouri  into  the  Union  upon  a  ''fun 
damental  condition,"  which  condition  was  to  be  in  the  nature  of  a 
solemn  compact  between  the  United  States  on  the  one  part  and  the 
State  of  Missouri  on  the  other  part,  and  to  which  "  fundamental  con 
dition  "  the  State  of  Missouri  was  required  to  declare  her  assent  in 
the  form  of  "  a  solemn  public  act."  This  joint  resolution  passed,  and 
was  approved  March  2,  1821,  and  is  known  as  Mr.  Clay's  Missouri 
Compromise,  in  contradistinction  to  that  of  1820,  which  was  intro 
duced  into  the  Senate  by  Mr.  Thomas,  of  Illinois.  In  the  month  of 
June,  1821,  the  legislature  of  Missouri  assembled  and  passed  the 
"solemn  public  act,''  and  furnished  an  authenticated  copy  thereof  to 
the  President  of  the  United  States,  in  compliance  with  Mr.  Clay's 
compromise,  or  joint  resolution.  On  August  10,  1821,  James  Mon 
roe,  President  of  the  United  States,  issued  his  proclamation,  in  which, 
after  reciting  the  fact  that  on  the  2d  of  March,  1821,  Congress  had 
passed  a  joint  resolution  "providing  for  the  admission  of  the  State  of 
Missouri  into  the  Union,  on  a  certain  condition  ;"  and  that  the  gene 
ral  assembly  of  Missouri,  on  the  26th  of  June,  having,  "by  a  solemn 
public  act,  declared  the  assent  of  the  said  State  of  Missouri  to  the 
fundamental  condition  contained  in  said  joint  resolution, "and  having 
furnished  him  with  an  authentic  copy  thereof,  he,  u  in  pursuance  <tf 


STEPHEN     A.    DOUGLAS.  117 

the  resolution  of  Congress  aforesaid,"  declared  the  admission  of  Mis 
souri  to  be  complete. 

I  do  not  deem  it  necessary  to  discuss  the  question  whether  the 
conditions  upon  which  Missouri  was  admitted  were  wise  or  unwise. 
It  is  sufficient  for  my  present  purpose  to  remark,  that  the  "  funda 
mental  condition  "  of  her  admission  related  to  certain  clauses  in  the 
constitution  of  Missouri  in  respect  to  the  migration  of  free  negroes 
into  that  State;  clauses  similar  to  those  now  in  force  in  the  consti 
tutions  of  Illinois  and  Indiana,  and  perhaps  other  States ;  clauses 
similar  to  the  provisions  of  law  in  force  at  that  time  in  many  of  the 
old  States  of  the  Union ;  and,  I  will  add,  clauses  which,  in  my  opin 
ion,  Missouri  had  a  right  to  adopt  under  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.  It  is  no  answer  to  this  position  to  say,  that  those 
clauses  in  the  constitution  of  Missouri  were  in  violation  of  the  Con 
stitution.  If  they  did  conflict  with  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  they  were  void  ;  if  they  were  not  in  conflict,  Missouri  had  a 
right  to  put  them  there,  and  to  pass  all  laws  necessary  to  carry  them 
into  effect.  Whether  such  conflict  did  exist  is  a  question  which,  by 
the  Constitution,  can  only  be  determined  authoritatively  by  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.  Congress  is  not  the  appropri 
ate  and  competent  tribunal  to  adjudicate  and  determine  questions  of 
conflict  between  the  constitution  of  a  State  and  that  of  the  United 
States.  Had  Missouri  been  admitted  without  any  condition  or  re 
striction,  she  would  have  had  an  opportunity  of  vindicating  her  con 
stitution  and  rights  in  the  Supreme  Court—the  tribunal  created  by 
the  Constitution  for  that  purpose. 

By  the  condition  imposed  on  Missouri,  Congress  not  only  deprived 
that  State  of  a  right  which  she  believed  she  possessed  under  the  con 
stitution  of  the  United  States,  but  denied  her  the  privilege  of  vindi 
cating  that  right  in  the  appropriate  and  constitutional  tribunals,  by 
compelling  her,  "  by  a  solemn  public  act,'7  to  give  an  irrevocable 
pledge  never  to  exercise  cr  claim  the  right.  Therefore  Missouri 
came  in  under  a  humiliating  condition — a  condition  not  imposed  by 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  which  destroys  the  prin 
ciple  of  equality  which  should  exist,  and  by  the  Constitution  does  not 
exist,  between  all  the  States  of  this  Union.  This  inequality  resulted 
from  Mr.  Clay's  compromise  of  1821,  and  is  the  principle  upon  which 
that  compromise  was  constructed.  I  own  that  the  act  is  couched  in 
general  terms  and  vague  phrases,  and  therefore  may  possibly  be  so 
construed  as  not  to  deprive  the  State  of  any  right  she  might  pos 
sess  under  the  Constitution.  Upon  that  point  I  wish  only  to  say, 
that  such  a  construction  makes  the  "fundamental  condition"  void, 
while  the  apposite  constructioti  would  demonstrate  it  to  be  uncon 
stitutional.  I  have  before  me  the  "solemn  public  act"  of  Missouri 
to  this  fundamental  condition,  whoever  will  take  the  trouble  to 
read  it  will  find  it  the  richest  specimen  of  irony  and  sarcasm  that  has 
ever  been  incorporated  into  a  publie  act. 

Sir,  in  view  of  these  facts  I  desire  to  call  the  attention  of  the  sen 


118       THE  LIFE  AND  SPEECHES  OF 

ator  from  New  York  to  a  statement  in  his  speech,  upon  which  the 
greater  part  of  his  argument  rested.  His  statement  was,  and  it  is 
now  being  published  in  every  abolition  paper,  and  repeated  by  the 
whole  tribe  of  abolition  orators  and  lecturers,  that  Missouri  was 
admitted  as  a  slaveholding  State,  under  the  act  of  1820 ;  while  I  have 
shown,  by  the  President's  proclamation  of  August  10,  1821,  that  she 
Avas  admitted  in  pursuance  of  the  resolution  of  March  2,  1821. 
Thus  it  is  shown  that  the  material  point  of  his  speech  is  contra 
dicted  by  the  highest  evidence — the  record  in  the  case.  The  same 
statement  I  believe  was  made  by  the  senator  from  Connecticut  (Mr. 
Smith),  and  the  senators  from  Ohio  (Mr.  Chase  and  Mr.  Wade),  and 
the  senator  from  Massachusetts  (Mr.  Sumner).  Each  of  these  sena 
tors  made  and  repeated  this  statement,  and  upon  the  strength  of  this 
erroneous  assertion  called  upon  us  to  carry  into  effect  the  eighth  sec 
tion  of  the  same  act.  The  material  fact  upon  which  their  arguments 
rested  being  overthrown,  of  course  their  conclusions  are  erroneous 
and  deceptive. 

ME.  SEWAED. — I  hope  the  senator  will  yield  for  a  moment,  because 
I  have  never  had  so  much  respect  for  him  as  I  have  to  night. 

ME.  DOUGLAS. — I  see  what  course  I  have  to  pursue  in  order  to  com 
mand  the  senator's  respect.  I  know  now  how  to  get  it.  (Laughter,) 

ME.  SEWAED. — Any  man  who  meets  me  boldly  commands  my  res 
pect.  I  say  that  Missouri  would  not  not  have  been  adraittted  at  all 
into  the  Union  by  the  United  States  except  upon  the  compromise 
of  1820.  "When  that  point  was  settled  about  the  restriction  of  sla 
very  it  was  settled  in  this  way ;  that  she  should  corne  in  with  slavery 
and  that  all  the  rest  of  the  Louisiana  purchase,  which  is  now  known 
as  Nebraska,  should  be  forever  free  from  slavery.  Missouri  adopted 
a  constitution,  which  was  thought  by  the  northern  States  to  infringe 
upon  the  right  of  citizenship  guaranteed  by  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  which  was  a  new  point  altogether ;  and  upon  that 
point  debate  was  held,  and  upon  it  a  new  compromise  was  made,  and 
Missouri  came  into  the  Union  upon  the  agreement,  that,  in  regard  to 
that  question,  she  submitted  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
and  so  she  ras  admitted  into  the  Union. 

ME.  DOUGLAS. — Mr.  President,  I  must  remind  the  senator  again 
that  I  have  already  proven  that  he  was  in  error  in  stating  that  the 
_  jrth  objected  to  the  admission  of  Missouri  merely  on  account  of  the 
free-negro  clause  in  her  constitution.  I  have  proven  by  the  vote 
that  the  North  objected  to  her  admission  because  she  tolerated  sla 
very  ;  this  objection  was  sustained  by  the  North  by  a  vote  of  nearly 
two  to  one.  He  cannot  shelter  himself,  therefore,  tinder  the  free- 
negro  dodge,  so  long  as  there  is  a  distinct  vote  of  the  North  objecting 
to  her  admission;  because,  in  addition  to  complying  with  the  act  of 
1820,  she  did  not  also  prohibit  slavery,  which  was  the  only  consider 
ation  that  the  South  was  to  have  for  agreeing  to  the  prohibition  of 
slavery  in  the  Territories.  Then,  having  deprived  the  senator,  by 
conclusive  evidence  from  the  records,  of  that  pretext,  what  do  I  drive 


STEPHEN     A.    DOUGLAS.  119 

him  to  ?     I  compel  him  to  acknowledge  that  a  new  compromise  was 
made. 

MR.  SEWARD. — Certainly  there  was. 

MB.  DOUGLAS. — Then,  I  ask,  why  was  it  made?  Because  the 
North  would  not  carry  out  the  first  one.  And  the  best  evidence 
that  the  North  did  not  carry  out  the  first  one  is  the  senator's  admis 
sion  that  the  South  was  compelled  to  submit  to  a  new  one.  Then,  if 
there  was  a  new  compromise  made,  did  Missouri  come  in  under  tho 
new  one  or  the  old  one? 

MR.  SEWAED. — Under  both. 

MR.  DOUGLAS. — This  is  the  first  time,  in  this  debate,  it  has  been 
intimated  that  Missouri  came  in  under  two  acts  of  Congress.  The 
senator  did  not  allude  to  the  resolution  of  1821  in  his  speech;  none 
of  the  opponents  of  this  bill  have  said  it.  But  it  is  now  admitted 
that  she  did  not  come  into  the  Union  under  the  act  of  1820  alone. 
She  had  been  voted  out  under  the  first  compromise,  and  this  vote 
compelled  her  to  make  a  new  one,  and  she  came  in  under  the  new 
one ;  and  yet  the  senator  from  New  York,  in  his  speech,  declared  to 
the  world  that  she  came  in  under  the  first  one.  This  is  not  an  imma 
terial  question.  His  whole  speech  rests  upon  that  misapprehension  or 
inisstatement  of  the  record. 

MR.  SEWARD. — You  had  better  say  misapprehension. 

MB.  DOUGLAS. — Very  well.  We  will  call  it  by  that  name.  His 
whole  argument  depends  upon  that  misapprehension.  After  stating 
that  the  act  of  1820  was  a  compact,  and  that  the  North  performed  its 
part  of  it  in  good  faith,  he  arraigns  the  friends  of  this  bill  for  propos 
ing  to  annul  the  eighth  section  of  the  act  of  1820  without  first  turn 
ing  Missouri  out  of  the  Union,  in  order  that  slavery  may  be  abo 
lished  therein  by  the  act  of  Congress.  He  says  to  us,  in  substance  : 
u  Gentlemen,  if  you  are  going  to  rescind  the  compact,  have  respect 
for  that  great  law  of  morals,  of  honesty,  and  of  conscience  which 
compels  you  first  to  surrender  the  consideration  which  you  have 
received  'under  the  compact.'"  I  concur  with  him  in  regard  to 
the  obligation  to  restore  the  consideration  when  a  contract  is 
rescinded.  And  inasmuch  as  the  prohibition  in  the  Territories  north 
of  36°  30'  was  obtained,  according  to  his  own  statement,  by  an 
agreement  to  admit  Missouri  as  a  slaveholding  State  on  an  equal 
footing  with  the  original  States,  "  in  all  respects  whatsoever,"  as  spe 
cified  in  the  first  section  of  the  act  of  1820  ;  and,  inasmuch  as 
Missouri  was  refused  admission  under  said  act,  and  was  compelled  to 
submit  to  a  new  compromise  in  1821,  and  was  then  received  into  the 
Union  on  a  fundamental  condition  of  inequality,  I  call  on  him  and 
his  abolition  confederates  to  restore  the  consideration  which  they 
have  received,  in  the  shape  of  a  prohibition  of  slavery  north  of  36° 
30',  under  a  compromise  which  they  repudiated,  and  refused  to  carry 
into  effect.  I  call  on  them  to  correct  the  erroneous  statement  in 
respect  to  the  admission  of  Missouri,  and  to  make  a  restitution  of 
the  consideration  by  voting  for  this  bill.  I  repeat,  that  this  is  not 


320  THE     LIFE     AND      SPEECHES     OF 

an  immaterial  statement.  It  is  the  point  upon  which  the  abolitionists 
rest  their  whole  argument.  They  could  not  get  up  a  show  of  pre 
text  against  the  great  principle  of  self-government  involved  in  this 
bill,  if  they  could  not  repeat  all  the  time,  as  the  senator  from  New 
York  did  in  his  speech,  that  Missouri  came  into  the  Union  with 
slavery,  in  conformity  to  the  compact  which  was  made  by  the  act 
of  1820,  and  that  the  South,  having  received  the  consideration,  is 
now  trying  to  cheat  the  North  out  of  her  part  of  the  benefits.  I 
have  proven  that,  after  abolitionism  had  gained  its  points  so  far  as 
the  eighth  section  of  the  act  prohibited  slavery  in  the  Territory, 
Missouri  was  denied  admission  by  northern  votes  until  she  entered 
into  a  compact  by  which  she  was  understood  to  surrender  an  impor 
tant  right  now  exercised  by  several  States  of  the  Union. 

Mr.  President,  I  did  not  wish  to  refer  to  these  things.  I  did  not 
understand  them  fully  in  all  their  bearings  at  the  time  I  made  my 
first  speech  on  this  subject;  and,  so  far  as  I  was  familiar  with  them, 
I  made  as  little  reference  to  them  as  was  consistent  with  my  duty  ; 
because  it  was  a  mortifying  reflection  to  me,  as  a  northern  man,  that 
we  had  not  been  able,  in  consequence  of  the  abolition  excitement 
at  the  time,  to  avoid  the  appearance  of  bad  faith  in  the  obsenanro 
of  legislation,  which  has  been  denominated  a  compromise.  There 
were  a  few  men  then,  as  there  are  now,  who  had  the  moral  counige 
to  perform  their  duty  to  the  country  and  the  Constitution,  regardless 
of  consequences  personal  to  themselves.  There  were  ten  northern 
men  who  dared  to  perform  their  duty  by  voting  to  admit  Missouri 
into  the  Union  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original  States,  and  with 
no  other  restriction  than  that  imposed  by  the  Constitution.  I  am 
aware  that  they  were  abused  and  denounced  as  we  are  now ;  that 
they  were  branded  as  dough-faces,  traitors  to  freedom,  and  to  the 
eection  of  the  country  whence  they  come. 

MR.  GEYER. — They  honored  Mr.  Lanman,  of  Connecticut,  by  burn 
ing  him  in  effigy. 

MR.  DOUGLAS. — Yes,  sir;  these  abolitionists  honored  Mr.  Lanman 
in  Connecticut  just  as  they  are  honoring  me  in  Boston,  and  other 
places,  by  burning  me  in  effigy. 

MR.  CASS. — It  wrill  do  you  no  harm. 

MR.  DOUGLAS. — Well,  sir,  I  know  it  will  not ;  but  why  this  burning 
in  effigy?  It  is  the  legitimate  consequences  of  the  address  which 
was  sent  forth  to  the  world  by  certain  senators,  whom  I  denominated, 
on  a  former  occasion,  as  the  abolition  confederates.  The  senator 
from  Ohio  presented  here  the  other  day  a  resolution — he  says  unin 
tentionally,  and  I  take  it  so — declaring  that  every  senator  who  advo 
cated  this  bill  was  a  traitor  to  his  country,  to  humanity,  and  to  God  ; 
and  even  he  seemed  to  be  shocked  at  the  results  of  his  own  advice 
when  it  was  exposed.  Yet  he  did  not  seem  to  know  that  it  was,  in 
substance,  what  he  had  advised  in  his  address,  over  his  own  signa 
ture,  when  he  called  upon  the  people  to  assemble  in  public  meetinga 
and  thunder  forth  their  indignation  at  the  criminal  betrayal  of  pre- 


STEPHEN     A.    DOUGLAS.  121 

cious  rights ;  when  he  appealed  to  ministers  of  the  Gospel  to  desecrato 
their  holy  calling,  and  attempted  to  inflame  passions,  and  fanaticism, 
and  prejudice  against  senators  who  would  not  consider  themselves 
very  highly  complimented  by  being  called  his  equals  ?  And  yet,  when 
the  natural  consequences  of  his  own  action  and  advice  came  back 
upon  him,  and  he  presents  them  here,  and  is  called  to  an  account  for 
the  indecency  of  the  act,  he  professes  his  profound  regret  and  surprise 
that  anything  should  have  occurred  which  could  possibly  be  deemed 
unkind  or  disrespectful  to  any  member  of  this  body ! 

********* 

The  senator's  explanation  does  not  help  him  at  all.  He  says  he 
did  not  state  under  what  act  Missouri  came  in;  but  he  did  say,  as  I 
understood  him,  that  the  act  of  1820  was  a  compact,  and  that,  accord 
ing  to  that  compact,  Missouri  was  to  come  in  with  slavery,  provided 
slavery  should  be  prohibited  in  certain  Territories,  and  did  come  in 
in  pursuance  of  the  compact.  He  now  uses  the  word  "  compact." 
To  what  compact  does  he  allude  ?  Is  it  not  to  the  act  of  1820  ?  If  he 
did  not,  what  becomes  of  his  conclusion  that  the  eighth  section  of  that 
act  is  irrepealable?  He  will  not  venture  to  deny  that  his  reference 
was  to  the  act  of  1820.  Did  he  refer  to  the  joint  resolution  of  1821, 
under  which  Missouri  was  admitted?  If  so,  we  do  not  propose  to 
repeal  it.  We  admit  that  it  was  a  compact,  and  that  its  obligations 
are  irrevocably  fixed.  But  that  joint  resolution  does  not  prohibit 
slavery  in  the  Territories.  The  Nebraska  Bill  does  not  propose  to 
repeal  it,  or  impair  its  obligation  in  any  way.  Then,  sir,  why  not 
take  back  your  correction,  and  admit  that  you  did  mean  the  act  of 
1820,  when  you  spoke  of  irrevocable  obligations  and  compacts? 
Assuming  then,  that  the  senator  meant  what  he  is  now  unwilling 
either  to  admit  or  deny,  even  while  professing  to  correct  me,  that 
Missouri  came  in  under  the  act  of  1820,  I  aver  that  I  have  proven 
that  she  did  not  come  into  the  Union  under  that  act.  I  have  proven 
that  she  was  refused  admission  under  that  alleged  compact.  I 
have,  therefore,  proven  incontestably  that  the  material  statement 
upon  which  his  argument  rests  is  wholly  without  foundation,  and 
unequivocally  contradicted  by  the  record. 

Sir,  I  believe  I  may  say  the  same  of  every  speech  which  has  been 
made  against  the  bill,  upon  the  ground  that  it  impared  the  obligation 
o'%  compacts.  There  has  not  been  an  argument  against  the  measure, 
every  word  of  which  in  regard  to  the  faith  of  compacts  is  not  con 
tradicted  by  the  public  records.  What  I  complain  of  is  this:  The 
people  may  think  that  a  senator,  having  the  laws  and  journals  before 
him,  to  which  he  could  refer,  would  not  make  a  statement  in  contra 
diction  of  those  records.  They  make  the  people  believe  these  things, 
and  cause  them  to  do  great  injustice  to  others,  under  the  delusion 
that  they  have  been  wronged,  and  their  feelings  outraged.  Sir,  this 
address  did  for  a  time  mislead  the  whole  country.  It  made  the  legis 
lature  of  New  York  believe  that  the  act  of  1820  was  a  compact  which 
it  would  be  disgraceful  to  violate;  and,  acting  under  that  delusion, 

6 


122  THE     LIFE     AND      SPEECHES     OF 

they  framed  a  series  of  resolutions,  which,  if  true  and  just,  convict 
that  State  of  an  act  of  perfidy  and  treachery  unparalleled  in  the  his 
tory  of  free  governments.  You  see,  therefore,  the  consequence  of 
these  inisstatements.  You  degrade  your  own  State,  and  induce  the 
people,  under  the  impression  that  they  have  been  injured,  to  get  up 
a  violent  crusade  against  those  whose  fidelity  and  truthfulness  will  in 
the  end  command  their  respect  and  admiration.  In  consequence  of 
arousing  passions  and  prejudices,  I  am  now  to  be  found  in  effigy, 
hanging  by  the  neck,  in  all  the  towns  where  you  have  the  influence 
to  produce  such  a  result.  In  all  these  excesses,  the  people  are  yield 
ing  to  an  honest  impulse,  under  the  impression  that  a  grievous 
wrong  has  been  perpetrated.  You  have  had  your  day  of  triumph. 
You  have  succeeded  in  directing  upon  the  heads  of  others  a  torrent 
of  insult  and  calumny  from  which  even  you  shrink  with  horror,  when 
the  fact  is  exposed  that  you  have  become  the  conduits  for  conveying 
it  into  this  hall.  In  your  State,  sir  (addressing  himself  to  Mr.  Chase) 
I  find  I  am  burnt  in  effigy  in  your  abolition  towns.  All  this  is  done 
because  I  have  proposed,  as  it  is  said,  to  violate  a  compact!  Now, 
what  will  those  people  think  of  you  when  they  find  out  that  you 
have  stimulated  them  to  these  acts,  which  are  disgraceful  to  your 
State,  disgraceful  to  your  party,  and  disgraceful  to  your  cause,  under 
a  misrepresentation  of  the  facts,  which  misrepresentation  you  ought 
to  have  been  aware  of,  and  should  never  have  been  made. 

ME.  CHASE. — Will  the  senator  permit  me  to  say  a  few  words  ? 

MR.  DOUGLAS. — Certainly. 

MR.  CHASE. — Mr.  President,  I  certainly  regret*  that  anything  has 
occurred  in  my  State  which  should  be  otherwise  than  in  accordance 
with  the  disposition  which  I  trust  I  have  ever  manifested  to  treat 
the  senator  from  Illinois  with  entire  courtesy.  I  do  not  wish,  how 
ever,  to  be  understood,  here  or  elsewhere,  as  retracting  any  state 
ment  which  I  have  made,  or  being  ^unwilling  to  reassert  that  state 
ment  when  it  is  directly  impeached.  I  regard  the  admission  of  Mis 
souri,  and  the  facts  of  the  transaction  connected  with  it,  as  constitut 
ing  a  compact  between  the  two  sections  of  the  country ;  a  part  of 
which  was  fulfilled  in  the  admission  of  Missouri,  another  part  in  the 
admission  of  Arkansas,  and  other  parts  of  which  have  been  fulfilled  in 
the  admission  of  Iowa,  and  the  organization  of  Minnesota,  but  which 
yet  remains  to  be  fulfilled  in  respect  to  the  Territory  of  Nebraska, 
and  which,  in  my  judgment,  will  be  vioalated  by  the  repeal  of  the 
Missouri  prohibition.  That  is  my  judgment.  I  have  no  quarrel  with 
senators  who  differ  with  me ;  but  upon  the  whole  facts  of  the  trans 
action,  however,  I  have  not  changed  my  opinion  at  all,  in  conse 
quence  of  what  has  been  said  by  the  honorable  senator  from  Illinois. 
1  say  that  the  facts  of  the  transaction,  taken  together,  and  as  under 
stood  by  the  country  for  more  than  thirty  years,  constitute  a  cam- 
pact  binding  in  moral  force;  though,  as  I  have  always  said,  being 
embodied  in  a  legislative  act,  it  may  be  repealed  by  Congress,  if  Con 
gress  see  fit. 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  123 

MR.  DOUGLAS. — Mr.  President,  I  am  sorry  that  the  senator  from 
Ohio  lias  repeated  the  statement  that  Missouri  came  in  under  the 
compact  which  he  says  was  made  by  the  act  of  1820.  How  many 
times  have  I  to  disprove  the  statement?  Does  not  the  vote  to  which 
J  have  referred  show  that  such  was  not  the  case?  Does  not  the  fact; 
that  there  was  a  necessity  for  a  new  compromise  show  it  ?  Have  I 
not  proved  it  three  times  over?  and  is  it  possible  that  the  senator 
from  Ohio  will  repeat  it  in  the  face  of  the  record,  with  the  vote  star 
ing  him  in  the  face,  and  with  the  evidence  which  I  have  produced  ? 
Does  he  suppose  that  he  can  make  his  own  people  believe  that  his 
statement  ought  to  be  credited  in  opposition  to  the  solemn  record  ? 
I  am  amazed  that  the  senator  should  repeat  the  statement  again 
unsustained  by  the  fact,  by  the  record,  and  by  the  evidence,  and 
overwhelmed  by  the  whole  current  and  weight  of  the  testimony 
which  I  have  produced. 

The  senator  says,  also,  that  he  never  intended  to  do  me  injustice, 
and  he  is  sorry  that  the  people  of  his  State  have  acted  in  the  manner 
to  which  1  have  referred.  Sir,  did  he  n-ot  say,  in  the  same  document 
to  which  I  have  already  alluded,  that  I  was  engaged,  with  others,  in 
"a  criminal  betrayal  of  precious  rights,"  in  an  "atrocious  plot?" 
Did  he  not  say  that  I  and  others  were  guilty  of  "  meditated  bad 
faith  ?"  Are  riot  these  his  exact  words  ?  Did  he  not  say  that  "  ser 
vile  demagogues"  might  make  the  people  believe  certain  things,  or 
attempt  to  do  so  ?  Did  he  not  say  everything  calculated  to  produce 
and  bring  upon  my  head  all  the  insults  to  which  I  have  been  sub 
jected  publicly  and  privately — not  even  excepting  the  insulting  let 
ters  which  I  have  received  from  his  constituents,  rejoicing  at  my 
domestic  bereavements,  and  praying  that  other  and  similar  calami 
ties  may  befall  me  ?  All  these  have  resulted  from  that  address.  I 
expected  such  consequences  when  I  first  saw  it.  In  it  he  called  upon 
the  preachers  of  the  Gospel  to  prostitute  the  sacred  desk  in  stimu 
lating  excesses ;  and  then,  for  fear  that  the  people  would  not  know 
who  it  was  that  was  to  be  insulted  and  calumniated,  he  told  them, 
in  a  postscript,  that  Mr.  Douglas  was  the  author  of  all  this  iniquity, 
and  that  they  ought  not  to  allow  their  rights  to  be  made  the  hazard 
of  a  Presidential  game !  After  having  used  such  language,  he  says 
meant  no  disrespect — he  meant  nothing  unkind !  He  was  amazed 
that  I  said  in  my  opening  speech  that  there  was  anything  offensive 
in  this  address ;  and  he  could  not  suffer  himself  to  use  harsh  epithets, 
or  to  impugn  a  gentleman's  motives!  No!  not  he!  After  having 
deliberately  written  all  these  insults,  impugning  motive  and  charac 
ter,  and  calling  upon  our  holy  religion  to  sanctify  the  calumny,  he 
could  not  think  of  losing  his  dignity  by  bandying  epithets,  or  using 
harsh  and  disrespectful  terms  ! 

Mr.  President,  1  expected  all  that  has  occurred,  and  more  than 
has  come,  as  the  legitimate  result  of  that  address.  The  things  to 
which  I  referred  are  the  natural  consequences  of  it.  The  only  re 
venge  I  seek  is  to  expose  the  authors,  and  leave  them  to  bear,  as  best 


124:  THE     LIFE     AND      SPEECHES     OF 

they  may,  the  just  indignation  of  an  honest  community,  when  tha 
people  discover  how  their  sympathies  and  feelings  have  been  out 
raged,  by  making  them  the  instruments  in  performing  such  desper 
ate  acts. 

Sir,  even  in  Boston  1  have  been  hung  in  effigy.  I  may  say  that  I 
expected  it  to  occur  even  there,  for  the  senator  from  Massachusetts 
lives  there.  He  signed  his  name  to  that  address ;  and  for  fear  the 
Boston  abolitionists  would  not  know  that  it  was  he,  he  signed  it 
"  Charles  Simmer,  senator  from  Massachusetts."  The  first  outrage 
was  in  Ohio,  where  the  address  was  circulated  under  the  signature 
of  "  Salmon  P.  Chase,  senator  from  Ohio."  The  next  came  from 
Boston — the  same  Boston,  sir,  which,  under  the  direction  of  the 
same  leaders,  closed  Faneuil  Hall  to  the  immortal  Webster  in  1850, 
because  of  his  support  of  the  Compromise  measures  of  that  year, 
which  all  now  confess  have  restored  peace  and  harmony  to  a  dis 
tracted  country.  Yes,  sir,  even  Boston,  so  glorious  in  her  early  his 
tory — Boston,  around  whose  name  so  many  historical  associations 
cling,  to  gratify  the  heart  and  exalt  the  pride  of  every  American — 
could  be  led  astray  by  abolition  misrepresentations  so  far  as  to  deny 
a  hearing  to  her  own  great  man,  who  had  shed  so  much  glory  upon 
Massachusetts  and  her  metropolis  I  I  know  that  Boston  now  feels 
humiliated  and  degraded  by  the  act.  And,  sir  (addressing  himself  to 
Mr.  Surnncr),  you  will  remember  that  when  you  came  into  the  Sen 
ate,  and  sought  an  opportunity  to  put  forth  your  abolition  incendi 
arism,  you  appealed  to  our  sense  of  justice  by  the  sentiment,  "Strike, 
but  hear  me  first."  But  when  Webster  went  back  in  1850  to  speak 
to  his  constituents  in  his  own  self-defence,  to  tell  the  truth,  and  to 
expose  his  slanderers,  you  would  not  hear  him,  but  you  struck  first! 

Again,  sir,  even  Boston,  with  her  Faneuil  Hall  consecrated  to 
liberty,  was  so  far  led  astray  by  abolitionism,  that  when  one  of  her 
gallant  sons — gallant  by  his  own  glorious  deeds,  inheriting  a  heroic 
Revolutionary  name,  had  given  his  life  to  his  country  upon  the  bloody 
field  of  Buena  Vista;  and  when  his  remains  were  brought  home, 
even  that  Boston,  under  abolition  guidance  and  abolition  preaching, 
denied  him  a  (>ecent  burial,  because  he  lost  his  life  in  vindicating  his 
country's  honor  upon  the  southern  frontier  !  Even  the  name  of  Lin 
coln,  and  the  deeds  of  Lincoln,  could  not  secure  for  him  a  decent 
interment,  because  abolitionism  follows  a  patriot  beyond  the  grave. 
(Applause  in  the  galleries.) 

THE  PRESIDING  OFFICER  (ME.  MASON  in  the  chair). —  Order  must 
be  preserved. 

MR.  DOUGLAS. — Mr.  President,  with  these  facts  before  me,  how 
could  I  hope  to  escape  the  fate  which  had  followed  these  great  and 
good  men  ?  While  I  had  no  right  to  hope  that  I  might  be  honored  as 
they  had  been,  under  abolition  auspices,  have  I  not  a  right  to  be 
proud  of  the  distinction  and  the  association  ?  Mr.  President,  I  regret 
these  digressions.  I  have  not  been  abla  to  follow  the  line  of  argu 
ment  which  I  had  marked  out  for  myself,  because  of  the  many  inter* 


STEPHEN     A.    DOUGLAS.  125 

ruptions.  I  do  not  complain  of  them.  It  is  fair  that  gentlemen 
should  make  them,  inasmuch  as  they  have  not  the  opportunity  01 
replying;  hence  I  have  yielded  the  floor,  and  propose  to  do  so  cheer 
fully  whenever  any  senator  intimates  that  justice  to  him  or  his  posi 
tion  requires  him  to  say  anything  in  reply. 

Returning  to  the  pomt  from  which  I  was  diverted : 

I  think  I  have  shown  that,  if  the  act  of  182$  called  the  Missouri 
Compromise,  was  a  compact,  it  was  violated  and  repudiated  by  a 
solemn  vote  of  the  House  of  Representatives  in  1821,  within  eleven 
months  after  it  was  adopted.  It  was  repudiated  by  the  North  by  a 
majority  vote,  and  that  repudiation  was  so  complete  and  successful  as 
to  compel  Missouri  to  make  a  new  compromise,  and  she  was  brought 
into  the  Union  under  the  new  compromise  of  1821,  and  not  under 
the  act  of  1820.  This  reminds  me  of  another  point  made  in  nearly 
all  the  speeches  against  this  bill,  and,  if  I  recollect  right,  was- alluded 
to  in  the  abolition  manifesto;  to  which,  I  regret  to  say,  I  had  occa 
sion  to  refer  so  often.  I  refer  to  the  significant  hint  that  Mr.  Clay 
was  dead  before  any  one  dared  to  bring  forward  a  proposition  to 
undo  the  greatest  work  of  his  hands,  the  senator  from  New  York 
(Mr.  Seward)  has  seized  upon  this  insinuation,  and  elaborated  it,  per 
haps,  more  fully  than  his  compeers;  and  now  the  abolition  press 
suddenly,  and  as  if  by  miraculous  conversion,  teems  with  eulogies 
upon  Mr  Clay  and  his  Missouri  Compromise  of  1820. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  does  not  each  of  these  senators  know  that  Mr. 
Clay  was  not  the  author  of  the  act  of  1820?  Do  they  not  know  that 
he  disclaimed  it  in  1850  in  this  body?  Do  they  not  know  that  the 
Missouri  restriction  did  not  originate  in  the  house  of  which  he  was  a 
member?  Do  they  not  know  that  Mr.  Clay  never  came  into  the  Mis 
souri  controversy  as  a  compromiser  until  after  the  compromise  of 
1820  was  repudiated,  and  it  became  necessary  to  make  another  ?  I 
dislike  to  be  compelled  to  repeat  what  I  have  conclusively  proven, 
that  the  compromise  which  Mr  Clay  effected  was  the  act  of  1821,  un 
der  which  Missouri  came  into  the  Union,  and  not  the  act  of  1820. 
Mr.  Clay  made  that  compromise  after  you  had  repudiated  the  first 
one.  How,  then,  dare  you  call  upon  the  spirit  of  that  great  and  gal 
lant  statesman  to  sanction  your  charge  of  bad  faith  against  the  South 
on  this  question  ? 

ME.  SEWARD. — "Will  the  senator  allow  me  a  moment? 

ME.  DOUGLAS. — Certainly. 

ME.  SEWAED. — In  the  year  1851  or  1852, 1  think  1851,  a  medal  was 
struck  in  honor  of  Henry  Clay,  of  gold,  which  cost  a  large  sum  of 
money,  which  contained  eleven  acts  of  the  life  of  Henry  Clay.  It 
was  presented  to  him  by  a  committee  of  citizens  of  New  York,  by 
whom  it  had  been  made.  One  of  the  eleven  acts  of  his  life  which 
was  celebrated  on  that  medal,  which  he  accepted,  was  the  Missouri 
Compromise  of  1820.  This  is  my  answer. 

ME.  DOUGLAS.— Are  the  words' "  of  1820  "  upon  it? 

ME,  SEWAED. — It  commemorates  the  Missouri  Compromise. 


126  LIFE     OF     STEPHEN     A  .     DOUGLAS. 

MR.  DOUGLAS. — Exactly.  I  have  seen  that  medal ;  and  my  recol 
lection  is  that  it  does  not  contain  the  words  "  of  1820."  One  of  the 
great  acts  of  Mr.  Clay  was  the  Missouri  Compromise,  but  what  Mis 
souri  Compromise?  Of  course,  the  one  which  Henry  Clay  made,  the 
one  which  he  negotiated,  the  one  which  brought  Missouri  into  the 
Union,  and  which  settled  the  controversy.  That  was  the  act  of  1821, 
and  not  the  act  of  1820.  It  tends  to  confirm  the  statement  which  I 
have  made.  History  is  misread  and  misquoted,  and  these  statements 
have  been  circulated  and  disseminated  broadcast  through  the  country, 
concealing  the  truth.  Does  not  the  senator  know  that  Henry  Clay, 
when  occupying  that  seat  in  1850  (pointing  to  Mr.  Clay's  chair),  in 
his  speech  of  the  6th  of  February  of  that  year,  said  that  nothing  had 
struck  him  with  so  much  surprise  as  the  fact  that  historical  circum 
stances  soon  passed  out  of  recollection ;  and  he  instanced,  as  a  casein 
point,  the  error  of  attributing  to  him  the  act  of  1820.  (Mr.  Seward 
nodded  assent.)  The  senator  from  New  York  says  that  he  does 
remember  that  Mr.  Clay  did  say  so.  If  so,  how  is  it,  then,  that  he 
presumes  now  to  rise  and  quote  that  medal  as  evidence  that  Henry 
Clay  was  the  author  of  the  act  of  1820? 

MB.  SKWAED. — I  answer  the  senator  in  this  way  :  that  Henry  Clay, 
while  he  said  he  did  not  disavow  or  disapprove  of  that  compromise, 
transferred  the  merit  of  it  to  others  who  were  more  active  in  procur 
ing  it  than  he,  while  he  had  enjoyed  the  praise  and  the  glory  which 
were  due  from  it. 

MR.  DOUGLAS. — To  that  I  have  only  to  say,  that  it  cannot  be  the 
reason;  fur  Henry  Clay,  in  that  same  speech,  did  take  to  himself  the 
merit  of  the  compromise  of  1821,  and  hence  it  could  not  have  been 
modesty  which  made  him  disavow  the  other.  He  said  that  he  did 
not  know  whether  he  had  voted  for  the  act  of  1820  or  not;  but  lie 
supposed  that  he  had  done  so.  He  furthermore  said  that  it  did  not 
originate  in  the  house  of  which  he  was  a  member,  and  that  he  never 
did  approve  of  its  principles;  but  that  he  may  have  voted,  and  pro 
bably  did  vote  for  it,  under  the  pressure  of  the  circumstances. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  as  I  have  been  doing  justice  to  Mr.  Clay  on 
this  question,  perhaps  I  may  as  well  do  justice  to  another  great  man, 
who  was  associated  with  him  in  carrying  through  the  great  measures 
of  1850,  which  mortified  the  senator  from  New  York  so  much, 
because  they  defeated  his  purpose  of  carrying  on  the  agitation.  I 
allude  to  Mr.  "Webster.  The  authority  of  his  great  name  has  been 
quoted  for  the  purpose  of  proving  that  he  regarded  the  Missouri  Act 
as  a  compact — an  irrepealable  compact.  Evidently  the  distinguished 
senator  from  Massachusetts  (Mr.  Everett)  supposed  that  he  was  doing 
Mr.  Webster  entire  justice  when  he  quoted  the  passage  which  he  read 
from  Mr.  "Webster's  speech  of  the  7th  of  March,  1850,  when  he  said 
that  he  stood  upon  the  position  that  every  part  of  the  American  con 
tinent  was  fixed  for  freedom  or  for  slavery  by  irrepeal&ole  law. 

The  senator  says  that,  by  the  expression  "irrepealable  law,"  Mr. 
Webster  meant  to  include  the  compromise  of  1820.  Now,  I  will 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  127 

show  that  that  was  not  Mr.  Webster's  meaning — that  he  was  never 
guilty  of  the  mistake  of  saying  that  the  Missouri  Act  of  1820  was  an 
irrepealable  law.  Mr.  Webster  said  in  that  speed),  that  every  foot 
of  territory  in  the  United  States  was  fixed  as  to  its  character  for  free 
dom  or  slavery  by  an  irrepealable  law.  He  then  inquired  if  it  was 
not  so  in  regard  to  Texas?  He  went  on  to  prove  that  it  was;  be 
cause,  he  said,  there  was  a  compact  in  express  terms  between  Texas 
and  the  United  States.  He  said  the  parties  were  capable  of  contract 
ing,  and  that  there  was  a  valuable  consideration  ;  and  hence,  he  con 
tended,  that  in  that  case  there  was  a  contract  binding  in  honor,  and 
morals,  and  law ;  and  that  it  was  irrepealable  without  a  breach  of 
faith. 

He  went  on  to  say : 

"Now,  as  to  California  and  New  Mexico,  I  hold  slavery  to  be  excluded  from 
those  Territories  by  a  law  even  superior  to  that  which  admits  and  sanctions  it 
in  Texas — I  mean  the  law  of  nature,  of  physical  geography,  the  law  of  the 
formation  of  the  earth." 

That  was  the  irrepealable  law  which  he  said  prohibited  slavery  in 
the  Territories  of  Utah  and  New  Mexico.  He  next  went  on  to  speak 
of  the  prohibition  of  slavery  in  Oregon,  and  he  said  it  was  an  '"en 
tirely  useless,  and,  in  that  connection,  senseless  proviso." 

He  went  farther,  and  said : 

"  That  the  whole  territory  of  the  States  in  the  United  States,  or  in  the 
newly-acquired  territory  of  the  United  States,  has  a  fixed  and  settled  character, 
now  iixed  and  settled  by  law,  which  cannot  be  repealed  in  the  case  of  Texas 
without  a  violation  of  'public  faith,  and  cannot  be  repealed  by  any  human 
]>o\ver  in  regard  to  California  or  New  Mexico  ;  that,  under  one  or  other  of  these 
laws,  every  foot  of  territory  in  the  States,  or  in  the  Territories,  has  now 
received  a  fixed  and  decided  character." 

What  irrepealable  laws?  "One  or  the  other  "  of  those  which  he 
had  stated.  One  was  the  Texas  compact,  the  other  the  law  of  nature 
and  physical  geography ;  and  he  contended  that  one  or  the  other 
fixed  the  character  of  the  whole  American  continent  for  freedom  or 
for  slavery.  He  never  alluded  to  the  Missouri  Compromise,  unless  it 
was  by  the  allusion  to  the  Wilmot  Proviso  in  the  Oregon  Bill,  and 
there  he  said  it  was  a  useless,  and,  in  that  connection,  seaseless 
thing.  Why  was  it  a  useless  and  a  senseless  thing  ?  Because  it  was 
re-enacting  the  law  of  God;  because  slavery  had  already  been  pro 
hibited  by  physical  geography.  Sir,  that  was  the  meaning  of  Mr. 
Webster's  speech.  My  distinguished  friend  from  Massachusetts  (Mr. 
Everett),  when  he  reads  the  speech  again,  will  be  utterly  amazed  to 
see  how  he  fell  into  such  an  egregious  error  as  to  suppose  that  Mr. 
Webster  had  so  far  fallen  from  his  high  position  as  to  say  that  thb 
Missouri  Act  of  1820  was  an  irrepealable  law. 

ME.  EVEEETT. — Will  the  gentleman  give  way  for  a  moment? 

ME.  DOUGLAS. — With  great  pleasure. 

MB.  EVEEETT. — What  I  said  on  that  subject  was,  that  Mr.  Webster, 


128       THE  LIFE  AND   SPEECHES   OF 

in  my  opinion,  considered  the  Missouri  Compromise  as  of  the  nature 
of  a  compact.  It  is  true,  as  the  senator  from  Illinois  has  just  stated, 
that  Mr.  Webster  made  no  allusion,  in  express  terms,  to  the  subject 
of  the  Missouri  restriction.  But  I  thought  then,  and  I  think  now, 
that  he  referred  in  general  terms  to  that  as  a  linal  settlement  of  the 
question,  in  the  region  to  which  it  applied.  It  was  not  drawn  in 
question  then  on  either  side  of  the  House.  Nobody  suggested  that 
it  was  at  stake.  Nobody  intimated  that  there  was  a  question  before  the 
Senate  whether  that  restriction  should  be  repealed  or  should  remain  in 
force.  It  was  not  distinctly,  and  in  terms,  alluded  to,  as  the  gentle 
man  correctly  says,  by  Mr. 'Webster  or  anybody  else.  What  he  said 
in  reference  td  Texas,  applied  to  Texas  alone.  W'hat  he  said  in  refer 
ence  to  Utah  and  New  Mexico,  applied  to  them  alone  ;  and  what  he 
said  with  regard  to  Oregon,  to  that  Territory  alone.  But  he  stated 
in  general  terms,  and  four  or  five  times,  in  the  speech  of  the  7th  of 
March,  1850,  that  there  was  not  a  foot  of  land  in  the  United  States 
or  its  Territories,  the  character  of  which,  for  freedom  of  slavery,  was 
not  fixed  by  some  irrepealable  law ;  and  I  did  think  then,  and  I 
think  now,  that  by  the  "  irrepealable  law,"  as  far  as  concerned  the 
territory  north  of  36°  30'  and  included  in  the  Louisiana  purchase, 
Mr.  Webster  had  reference  to  the  Missouri  restriction,  as  regarded  as 
of  the  nature  of  a  compact.  That  restriction  was  copied  from  one 
of  the  provisions  of  the  Ordinance  of  1787,  which  are  declared  in 
that  instrument  itself  to  be  articles  of  compact.  The  Missouri 
restriction  is  the  article  of  the  Ordinance  of  1787  applied  to  tho 
Louisiana  purchase.  That  this  is  the  correct  interpretation  of  Mr. 
Webster's  language,  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  he  said  more  than 
once,  and  over  again,  that  all  the  North  lost  by  the  arrangement  of 
1859,  was  the  non-imposition  of  the  Wilmot  Proviso  upon  Utah  and 
New  Mexico.  If,  in  addition  to  that,  the  North  had  lost  the  Missouri 
restriction  over  the  whole  of  the  Louisiana  purchase,  could  he  have 
used  language  of  that  kind,  and  would  he  not  have  attempted,  in 
some  way  or  other,  to  reconcile  such  a  momentous  fact  with  his 
repeated  statements  that  the  measures  of  1850  applied  only  to  the 
territories  newly  acquired  from  Mexico  ? 

ME.  DOUGLAS. — Mr.  President,  I  will  explain  that  matter  very 
quickly.  Mr.  Webster's  speech  was  made  on  the  7th  of  March,  1850, 
and  the  Territorial  bills  and  the  Texas  boundary  bill  were  first  re 
ported  to  the  Senate  by  myself  on  the  25th  of  the  same  month.  Mr. 
Webster's  speech  was  made  upon  Mr.  Clay's  resolution,  when  there 
was  no  bill  pending.  Then  the  Omnibus  Bill  was  formed  about  the 
1st  of  May  subsequently;  and  hence  this  explains  the  reason  why 
Mr.  Webster  did  not  refer  to  the  principle  involved  in  these  acts,  and 
to  the  necessary  effect  of  carrying  out  the  principle. 

MR.  EVEEETT.— The  expression  of  Mr.  Webster,  which  I  quoted  in 
my  remarks  on  the  8th  of  February,  was  from  a  speech  of  Mr.  Soule's 
amendment,  offered,  I  think,  in  June.  In  addition  to  this,  I  have 
before  me  an  extract  from  a  still  later  speech  of  Mr.  Webster,  made 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  129 

quite  lato  in  the  session,  on  the  17th  of  July,  1850,  in  which  he  reit 
erated  that  statement.     In  it  he  said : 

"  And  now,  sir,  what  do  Massachusetts  and  the  North,  the  anti-slavery  States, 
lose  by  this  adjustment?  What  is  it  they  lose  ?  I  put  that  question  to  every 
gentleman  here,  and  to  every  gentleman  in  the  country.  They  lose  the  appli 
cation  of  what  is  called  the  '  Wilmot  Proviso'  to  these  Territories,,  and  that  is 
all.  There  is  nothing  else,  I  suppose,  that  the  whole  North  are  not  ready  to  do. 
They  wish  to  get  California  into  the  Union  ;  they  wish  to  quiet  New  Mexico  ; 
they  desire  to  terminate  the  dispute  about  the  Texan  boundary  in  any  reason 
able  manner,  cost  what  it  reasonably  may.  They  make  no  sacrifice  in  all  that. 
What  they  do  sacrifice  is  exactly  this  :  The  application  of  the  '  Wilmot  Proviso' 
to  the  Territory  of  New  Mexico  and  the  Territory  of  Utah,  and  that  is  all." 

Could  Mr.  Webster  have  used  language  like  this  if  he  had  under 
stood  that,  at  the  same  time,  the  non-slaveholding  States  were  losing 
the  Missouri  restriction,  as  applied  to  the  whole  vast  territory  in 
cluded  in  the  bills  now  before  the  Senate  ? 

ME.  DOUGLAS. — Of  course  that  was  all,  and  if  he  regarded  the  Mis 
souri  prohibition  in  the  same  light  that  he  did  the  Oregon  prohibi 
tion,  it  was  a  useless,  and,  in  that  connection,  a  senseless  proviso ; 
and  hence  the  North  lost  nothing  by  not  having  that  same  senseless, 
useless  proviso  applied  to  Utah  and  New  Mexico.  Now,  to  show  the 
senator  that  he  must  be  mistaken  as  to  Mr.  Webster's  authority,  let 
me  call  his  attention  back  to  this  passage  in  his  7th  of  March  speech : 

"  Under  one  or  other  of  these  laws,  every  foot  of  territory  in  the  States  or 
Territories  has  now  received  a  fixed  and  decided  character.'* 

What  laws  did  he  refer  to  when  he  spoke  of  "  one  or  other  of  these 
laws?"  He  had  named  but  two,  the  Texas  compact  and  the  law  of 
nature,  of  climate,  and  physical  geography,  which  excluded  slavery. 
He  had  mentioned  none  other ;  and  yet  he  says  "  one  or  other"  pro 
hibited  slavery  in  all  the  States  or  Territories — thus  including  Ne 
braska,  as  well  as  Utah  and  New  Mexico. 

MR.  EVEEETT. — That  was  not  drawn  in  question  at  all. 

ME.  DOUGLAS. — Then  if  it  was  not  drawn  in  question,  the  speech 
should  not  have  been  quoted  in  support  of  the  Missouri  Compromise. 
It  is  just  what  I  complain  of,  that,  if  it  was  not  thus  drawn  in  ques 
tion,  that  use  ought  not  to  have-  been  made  of  it.  Now,  Mr.  Presi 
dent,  it  is  well  known  that  Mr.  Webster  supported  the  Compromise 
measures  of  1850,  and  the  principle  involved  in  them,  of  leaving  the 
people  to  do  as  they  pleased  upon  this  subject.  I  think,  therefore, 
that  I  have  shown  that  these  gentlemen  are  not  authorized  to  quote 
the  name  either  of  Mr.  Webster  or  Mr.  Clay  in  support  of  the  posi 
tion  which  they  take,  that  this  bill  violates  the  faith  of  compacts. 
Sir,  it  was  because  Mr.  Webster  went  for  giving  the  people  in  the 
Territories  the  right  to  do  as  they  pleased  upon  the  subject  of  slavery, 
and  because  he  was  in  favor  of  carrying  out  the  Constitution  in  re 
gard  to  fugitive  slaves,  that  he  was  not  allowed  to  speak  in  FaneuiJ 
Hall. 

6* 


130  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

MR.  EVERETT. — That  was  not  my  fault. 

MR.  DOUG-LAS. — I  know  it  was  not ;  but  I  say  it  was  because  ha 
took  that  position ;  it  was  because  he  did  not  go  for  a  prohibitory 
policy ;  it  was  because  he  advocated  the  same  principles  which  I  now 
advocate,  because  he  went  for  the  same  provisions  in  the  Utah  Bill 
which  I  now  sustain  in  this  bill,  that  Boston  abolitionists  turned 
their  backs  upon  him,  just  as  they  burnt  me  in  effigy.  Sir,  if  identity 
of  principle,  if  identity  of  support  as  friends,  if  identity  of  enemies 
fix  Mr.  Webster's  position,  his  authority  is  certainly  with  us,  and  not 
with  the  abolitionists.  I  have  a  right,  therefore,  to  have  the  sympa 
thies  of  his  Boston  friends  with  me,  as  I  sympathized  with  him  when 
the  same  principle  was  involved. 

Mr.  President,  I  am  sorry  that  I  have  taken  up  so  much  time ;  but 
I  must  notice  one  or  two  points  more.  So  much  has  been  said  about 
the  Missouri  Compromise  Act,  and  about  a  faithful  compliance  with 
it  by  the  North,  that  I  must  follow  that  matter  a  little  further.  The 
senator  from  Ohio  (Mr.  Wade)  has  referred,  to-night,  to  the  fact  that 
I  went  for  carrying  out  the  Missouri  Compromise  in  the  Texas  reso 
lutions  of  1845,  and  in  1848,  on  several  occasions;  and  he  actually 
proved  that  I  never  abandoned  it  until  1850.  He  need  not  have 
taken  the  pains  to  prove  that  fact ;  for  he  got  all  his  information  on 
the  subject  from  my  opening  speech  upon  this  bill.  I  told  you  then 
that  I  was  willing,  as  a  northern  man,  in  1845,  when  the  Texas  ques 
tion  arose,  to  carry  the  Missouri  Compromise  line  through  that  State, 
and  in  1848  I  offered  it  as  an  amendment  to  the  Oregon  Bill.  Al 
though  I  did  not  like  the  principle  involved  in  that  act,  yet  I  was 
willing,  for  the  sake  of  harmony,  to  extend  to  the  Pacific,  and  abide 
by  it  in  good  faith,  in  order  to  avoid  the  slavery  agitation.  The 
Missouri  Compromise  was  defeated  then  by  the  same  class  of  politi 
cians  who  are  now  combined  in  opposition  to  the  Nebraska  Bill.  It 
was  because  we  were  unable  to  carry  out  that  compromise,  that  a 
necessity  existed  for  making  a  new  one  in  1850.  And  then  we  estab 
lished  this  great  principle  of  self-government  which  lies  at  the  foun 
dation  of  all  our  institutions.  What  does  his  charge  amount  to  ? 
He  charges  it,  as  a  matter  of  offence,  that  I  struggled  in  1845  and  in 
1848  to  observe  good  faith;  and  he  and  his  associates  defeated  my 
purpose,  and  deprived  me  of  the  ability  to  carry  out  what  he  now 
says  is  the  plighted  faith  of  the  nation. 

Sir,  as  I  have  said,  the  South  were  willing  to  agree  to  the  Missouri 
Compromise  in  1848.  When  it  was  proposed  by  me  to  the  Oregon 
Bill,  as  an  amendment,  to  extend  that  line  to  the  Pacific,  the  South 
agreed  to  it.  The  Senate  adopted  that  proposition,  and  the  House 
voted  it  down.  In  1850,  after  the  Omnibus  Bill  had  broken  down, 
and  we  proceeded  to  pass  the  Compromise  measures  separately,  I 
proposed,  when  the  Utah  Bill  was  under  discussion,  to  make  a  slight 
variation  of  the  boundary  of  that  Territory,  so  as  to  include  the  Mor 
mon  settlements,  and  not  with  reference  to  any  other  question ;  and 
it,  was  suggested  that  we  should  take  the  line  of  30°  30'.  That  would 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  131 

have  accomplished  the  local  objects  of  the  amendment  very  well. 
But  when  I  proposed  it,  what  did  these  freesoilers  say  ?  What  did 
the  senator  from  Kew  Hampshire  (Mr.  Hale),  who  was  then  their 
leader  in  this  body,  say  ?  Here  are  his  words : 

"  MR.  HALE. — I  wish  to  say  a  word  as  a  reason  why  I  shall  vote  against  the 
amendment.  I  shall  vote  against  36°  30',  because  I  think  there  is  an  implica 
tion  in  it.  (Laughter.)  I  Avill  vote  for  37°  or  36°  either,  just  as  it  is  conve 
nient  ;  but  it  is  idle  to  shut  our  eyes  to  the  fact  that  here  is  an  attempt  in  this 
bill — I  will  not  say  it  is  the  intention  of  the  mover — to  pledge  this  Senate  and 
Congress  to  the  imaginary  line  of  36°  30',  because  there  are  some  historical 
recollections  connected  with  it  in  regard  to  this  controversy  about  slavery.  I 
will  content  myself  with  saying  that  I  never  will,  by  vote  or  speech,  admit  or 
submit  to  anything  that  may  bind  the  action  of  our  legislation  here  to  make 
the  parallel  of  30°  30'  the  boundary  line  between  slave  and  free  territory.  And 
when  I  say  that,  I  explain  the  reason  why  I  go  against  the  amendment." 

These  remarks  of  Mr.  Hale  were  not  made  on  a  proposition  to  ex 
tend  the  Missouri  Compromise  line  to  the  Pacific,  but  on  a  proposition 
to  fix  36°  30'  as  the  southern  boundary  line  of  Utah,  for  local  rea 
sons.  He  was  against  it  because  there  might  be,  as  he  said,  an  impli 
cation  growing  out  of  historical  recollections  in  favor  of  the  imaginary 
line  between  slavery  and  freedom.  Does  that  look  as  if  his  object 
was  to  get  an  implication  in  favor  of  preserving  sacred  this  line,  in 
regard  to  which  gentlemen  now  say  there  was  a  solemn  compact  ? 
That  proposition  may  illustrate  what  I  wish  to  say  in  this  connection 
upon  a  point  which  has  been  made  by  the  opponents  of  this  bill,  as 
to  the  effect  of  an  amendment  inserted  on  the  motion  of  the  senator 
from  Virginia  (Mr.  Mason),  into  the  Texas  Boundary  Bill.  The  oppo 
nents  of  this  measure  rely  upon  that  amendment  to  show  that  the 
Texas  compact  was  preserved  by  the  acts  of  1850.  I  have  already 
shown,  in  my  former  speech,  that  the  object  of  the  amendment  was 
to  guaranty  to  the  State  of  Texas,  with  her  circumscribed  boundaries, 
the  same  number  of  States  which  she  would  have  had  under  her 
larger  boundaries,  and  with  the  same  right  to  come  in  with  or  with 
out  slavery,  as  they  please. 

We  have  been  told  over  and  over  again  that  there  was  no  such 
thing  intimated  in  debate  as  that  the  country  cut  off  from  Texas  was 
to  be  relieved  from  the  stipulation  of  that  compromise.  This  haa 
been  asserted  boldly  and  unconditionally,  as  if  there  could  be  no 
doubt  about  it.  The  senator  from  Georgia  (Mr.  Toombs),  in  his 
speech,  showed  that,  in  his  address  to  his  constituents  of  that  State, 
he  had  proclaimed  to  the  world  that  the  object  was  to  establish  a 
principle  which  would  allow  the  people  to  decide  the  question  of 
slavery  for  themselves,  north  as  well  as  south  of  36°  30'.  The  line 
of  36°  30'  was  voted  down  as  the  boundary  of  Utah,  so  that  there 
should  not  be  even  an  implication  in  favor  of  an  imaginary  line  to 
divide  freedom  and  slavery.  Subsequently,  when  the  Texas  Boun 
dary  Bill  was  under  consideration,  on  the  next  day  after  the  amend 
ment  of  tho  senator  from  Virginia  had  been  adopted,  the  record 


132  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

"  MR.  SEBASTIAN  movedto  add  to  the  second  article  the  following : 
"  '  On  the  condition  that  the  territory  hereby  ceded  may  be,  at  the  proper 
time,  formed  into  a  State,  and  admitted  into  the  Union,  with  a  constitution 
with  or  without  the  prohibition  of  slavery  therein,  as  the  people  of  the  said 
Territory  may  at  the  time  determine.'  " 

Then  the  senator  from  Arkansas  did  propose  that  the  territory  cut 
off  should  be  relieved  from  that  restriction  in  express  terms,  and 
allowed  to  come  in  according  to  the  principles  of  this  bill.  "What 
•was  done  ?  The  debate  continued : 

"MR.  FOOTE. — Will  my  friend  allow  me  to  appeal  to  him  to  move  this 
amendment  when  the  Territorial  Bill  for  New  Mexico  shall  be  up  for  consider 
ation  ?  It  will  certainly  be  a  part  of  that  bill,  and  I  shall  then  vote  for  it  with 
pleasure.  Now  it  will  only  embarrass  our  action." 

Let  it  be  remarked,  that  no  one  denied  the  propriety  of  the  provi 
sion.  All  seemed  to  acquiesce  in  the  principle ;  but  it  was  thought 
better  to  insert  it  in  the  Territorial  bills,  as  we  are  now  doing,  instead 
of  adding  it  to  the  Texas  Boundary  Bill.  The  debate  proceeded  : 

"  MR.  SEBASTIAN My  only  object  in  offering  the  amendment  is  to  secure 

the  assertion  of  this  principle  beyond  a  doubt.  The  principle  was  acquiesced 
in  without  difficulty  in  regard  to  the  Territorial  government  established  for 
Utah,  a  part  of  this  acquired  territory,  and  it  is  proper,  in  my  opinion,  that  it 
should  be  incorporated  in  this  bill. 

"MESSRS.  CASS,  FOOTE,  and  others — Oh,  withdraw  it. 

"MR.  SEBASTIAN. — I  think  this  is  the  proper  place  for  it.  It  is  uncertain 
whether  it  will  be  incorporated  in  the  other  bill  referred  to,  and  the  bill  itself 
may  not  pass." 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  debate  goes  upon  the  supposition  that  the 
effect  was  to  release  the  country  north  of  36°  30'  from  the  obligation 
of  the  prohibition ;  and  the  only  question,  was  whether  the  declara 
tion  that  it  should  be  received  into  the  Union  "with  or  without 
slavery,"  should  be  inserted  in  the  Texas  Bill  or  the  Territorial  Bill. 

The*  debate  was  continued,  and  I  will  read  one  or  two  other  pas 
sages  : 

"MR.  FOOTE.— I  wish  to  state  to  the  senator  a  fact  of  which,  I  think,  he  is 
not  observant  at  this  moment ;  and  that  is,  that  the  senator  from  Virginia  has 
introduced  an  amendment,  which  is  now  a  part  of  the  bill,  which  recognizes 
the  Texas  compact  of  annexation  in  every  respect. 

"MR.  SEBASTIAN. — I  was  aware  of  the  effect  of  the  amendment  of  the  sena 
tor  from  Virginia.  It  is  in  regard  to  the  number  of  States  to  be  formed  out 
of  Texas,  and  is  referred  to  only  in  general  terms." 

Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  the  senator  from  Arkansas  then  explained 
the  amendment  of  the  senator  from  Virginia,  which  had  been 
adopted,  in  precisely  the  same  way  in  which  I  explained  il  in  my 
opening  speech.  The  senator  from  Arkansas  continued: 

"  If  this  amendment  be  the  same  as  that  offered  by  the  senator  from  Vir 
ginia,  there  can  certainly  be  no  harm  in  reaffirming  it  iu  this  bill,  to  which  I 
think  it  property  belongs." 


STEPHEN     A.    DOUGLAS.  133 

Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  nobody  disputed  that  the  restriction  was 
to  be  removed;  and  the  only  question  was,  as  to  the  bill  in  which 
that  declaration  would  be  put.  It  seems,  from  the  record,  that  I 
took  part  in  the  debate,  and  said  : 

"Mil.  DOUGLAS. — This  boundary  as  now  fixed,  would  leave  New  Mexico 
bounded  on  the  east  by  the  103°  of  longitude  up  to  36°  30',  and  then  east  to 
100°  ;  and  it  leaves  a  narrow  neck  of  land  between  36°  30'  and  the  old  bound 
ary  of  Texas,  that  would  not  naturally  and  properly  go  to  New  Mexico  when  it 
should  become  a  State.  This  amendment  would  compel  us  to  include  it  in 
New  Mexico,  or  to  form  it  into  another  State.  When  the  principle  shall  come 
up  in  the  bill  for  the  organization  of  a  Territorial  government  for  New  Mexico, 
no  doubt  the  same  vote  which  inserted  it  in  the  Omnibus  Bill,  and  the  Utah 
Bill,  will  insert  it  there. 

"  Several  senators. — No  doubt  of  it."- 

Upon  that  debate  the  amendment  of  the  senator  from  Arkansay 
was  voted  down,  because  it  was  avowed  and  distinctly  understood 
that  the  amendment  of  the  senator  from  Virginia,  taken  in  connection 
with  the  remainder  of  the  bill,  did  release  the  country  ceded  by 
Texas  north  of  36°  30'  from  the  restriction;  and  it  was  agreed  that 
if  we  did  not  put  it  into  the  Texas  Boundary  Bill  it  should  go  into 
the  Territorial  Bill.  I  stated,  as  a  reason  why  it  should  not  go  into 
the  Texas  Boundary  Bill,  that  if  it  did  it  would  be  a  compact,  and 
would  compel  us  to  put  the  whole  ceded  country  into  one  State, 
when  it  might  be  more  convenient  and  natural  to  make  a  different 
boundary.  I  pledged  myself  then  that  it  should  be  put  into  the 
Territorial  Bill;  and  when  we  considered  the  Territorial  bill  for 
New  Mexico,  we  put  in  the  same  clause,  so  far  as  the  country  ceded 
by  Texas  was  embraced  within  that  Territory,  and  it  passed  in  that 
shape.  When  it  went  into  the  house,  they  united  the  two  bills 
together,  and  thus  this  clause  passed  in  the  same  bill,  as  the  senator 
from  Arkansas  desired. 

Now,  sir,  have  I  not  shown  conclusively  that  it  was  the  under 
standing  in  that  debate  that  the  effect  was  to  release  the  country 
north  of  36°  30',  which  formerly  belonged  to  Texas,  from  the  opera 
tion  of  that  restriction,  and  to  provide  that  it  should  come  into  the 
Union  with  or  without  slavery,  as  its  people  should  see  proper? 

That  being  the  case ;  I  ask  the  senator  from  Ohio  (Mr.  Chase)  if 
he  ought  not  to  have  been  cautious  when  he  charged  over  and  over 
again  that  there  was  not  a  word  or  a  syllable  uttered  in  debate  to 
that  effect?  Should  he  not  have  been  cautious  when  he  said  that 
it  was  a  mere  after-thought  on  my  part?  Should  he  not  have  been 
cautious  when  he  said  that  I  never  even  dreamed  of  it  up  to  the  4th 
of  January  of  this  year?  Whereas  the  record  shows  that  I  made  a 
speech  to  that  effect  during  the  pendency  of  the  bills  of  1850.  The 
same  statement  was  repeated  by  nearly  every  senator  who  followed 
him  in  debate  in  opposition  to  this  bill ;  and  it  is  now  being  circulated 
over  the  country,  published  in  every  abolition  paper,  and  read  on 
every  stump  by  every  abolition  orator,  in  order  to  get  up  a  prejudice 


134:  TJIE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

against  me  and  the  measure  I  have  introduced.  Those  gentlemen 
should  not  have  dared  to  utter  the  statement  without  knowing 
whether  it  was  correct  or  not.  These  records  are  troublesome  things 
sometimes.  It  is  not  proper  for  a  man  to  charge  another  with  a 
mere  after-thouirht  because  he  did  not  know  that  he  had  advocated 
the  same  principles  before.  Because  he  did  not  know  it  he  should 
not  take  it  for  granted  that  nobody  else  did.  Let  me  tell  the  senators 
that  it  is  a  very  unsafe  rule  for  them  to  rely  upon.  They  ought  to 
have  had  sufficient  respect  for  a  brother  senator  to  have  believed, 
when  he  came  forward  with  an  important  proposition,  that  he  had 
investigated  it.  They  ought  to  have  had  sufficient  respect  for  a 
committee  of  this  body  to  have  assumed  that  they  meant  what  they 
said. 

When  I  see  such  a  system  of  misinterpretation  and  misrepresenta 
tion  of  views,  of  laws,  of  records,  of  debates,  all  tending  to  mislead 
the  public,  to  excite  prejudice,  and  to  propagate  error,  have  I  not  a 
right  to  expose  it  in  very  plain  terms,  without  being  arraigned  for 
violating  the  courtesies  of  the  Senate  ? 

Mr.  President,  frequent  reference  has  been  made  in  debate  to  the 
admission  of  Arkansas  as  a  slaveholding  State,  as  furnishing  evidence 
that  the  abolitionists  and  freesoilers,  who  have  recently  become  so 
much  enamored  with  the  Missouri  Compromise,  have  always  been 
faithful  to  its  stipulations  and  implications.  I  will  show  that  tha 
reference  is  unfortunate  for  them.  When  Arkansas  applied  foi 
admission  in  1836,  objection  was  made  in  consequence  of  the  provi 
sions  of  her  constitution  in  respect  to  slavery.  When  the  abolition 
ists  and  freesoilers  of  that  day  were  arraigned  for  making  that 
objection,  upon  the  ground  that  Arkansas  was  south  of  36°  30',  they 
replied  that  the  act  of  1820  was  never  a  compromise,  much  less  a 
compact,  imposing  any  obligation  upon  the  successors  of  those  who 
passed  the  act  to  pay  any  more  respect  to  its  provisions  than  to  any 
other  enactment  of  ordinary  legislation.  I  have  the  debates  before 
me,  but  will  occupy  the  attention  of  the  Senate  only  to  read  one  or 
two  paragraphs.  Mr.  Hand  of  New  York,  in  opposition  to  the 
admission  of  Arkansas  as  a  slaveholding  State,  said : 

"  I  am  aware,  it  will  be,  as  it  has  already  been  contended,  that  by  the 
Missouri  Compromise,  as  it  has  been  preposterously  termed,  Congress  has 
parted  with  its  right  to  prohibit  the  introduction  of  slavery  into  the  territory 
south  of  36°  30'  north  latitude." 

He  acknowledged  that  by  the  Missouri  Compromise,  as  he  said  it 
was  preposterously  termed,  the  North  was  estopped  from  denying 
the  right  to  hold  slaves  south  of  that  line;  but,  he  added: 

"  There  are,  to  my  mind,  insuperable  objections  to  the  soundness  of  that 
proposition." 


STEPHEN     A.    DOUGLAS.  135 

if  it  had  done  so,  it  was  a  mere  legislative  act,  that  could  not  bind  their  suc 
cessors  ;  it  would  be  subject  to  a  repeal  at  the  will  of  any  succeeding  Congress." 

I  give  these  passages  as  specimens  of  the  various  speeclies  made  in 
opposition  to  the  admission  of  Arkansas  by  the  same  class  of  politi 
cians  who  now  oppose  the  Nebraska  Bill  upon  the  ground  that  it 
violates  a  solemn  compact.  So  much  for  the  speeches.  Now  for 
the  vote.  The  journal  which  I  hold  in  my  hand,  shows  that  forty- 
nine  northern  votes  were  recorded  against  the  admission  of  Arkansas. 

Yet,  sirs,  in  utter  disregard — and  charity  leads  rne  to  hope,  in  pro 
found  ignorance — of  all  these  facts,  gentlemen  are  boasting  that  the 
North  always  observed  the  contract,  never  denied  its  validity,  never 
wished  to  violate  it ;  and  they  have  even  referred  to  the  cases  of 
the  admission  of  Missouri  and  Arkansas  as  instances  of  their  good 
faith. 

Now,  is  it  possible  that  gentlemen  could  suppose  these  things  could 
be  said  and  distributed  in  their  speeches  without  exposure  ?  Did 
they  presume  that,  inasmuch  as  their  lives  were  devoted  to  slavery 
agitation,  whatever  they  did  not  know  about  the  history  of  that 
question  did  not  exist  ?  I  am  willing  to  believe,  I  hope  it  may  be 
the  fact,  that  they  were  profoundly  ignorant  of  all  these  records,  all 
these  debates,  all  these  facts,  which  overthrow  every  position  they 
have  assumed.  I  wish  the  senator  from  Maine  (Mr.  Fesscnden),  who 
delivered  his  maiden  speech  here  to-night,  and  who  made  many 
sly  stabs  at  me,  had  informed  himself  upon  the  subject  before  he  re 
peated  all  these  groundless  assertions.  I  can  excuse  him  for  the 
reason  that  he  has  been  here  but  a  few  days,  and  having  enlisted 
under  the  banner  of  the  abolition  confederates,  was  unwise  and  sim 
ple  enough  to  believe  that  what  they  had  published  could  be  relied 
upon  as  stubborn  facts.  He  may  be  an  innocent  victim.  I  hope  he 
can  have  the  excuse  of  not  having  investigated  the  subject.  I  am 
willing  to  excuse  him  on  the  ground  that  he  did  not  know  what  he 
was  talking  about,  and  it  is  the  only  excuse  which  I  can  make  for 
him.  I  will  say,  however,  that  I  do  not  think  he  was  required  by 
his  loyalty  to  the  abolitionists  to  repeat  every  disreputable  insinua 
tion  which  they  made.  Why  did  he  throw  into  his  speech  that  foul 
innuendo  about  "  a  northern  man  with  southern  principles,"  and  then 
quote  the  senator  from  Massachusetts  (Mr.  Sumner)  as  his  authority  ? 
Ay,  sir,  I  say  that  foul  insinuation.  Did  not  the  senator  from  Mas 
sachusetts,  who  first  dragged  it  into  this  debate,  wish  to  have  the 
public  understand  that  I  was  known  as  a  northern  man  with  southern 
principles?  Was  not  that  the  allusion?  If  it  was,  he  availed  himself 
of  a  cant  phrase  in  the  public  mind,  in  violation  of  the  truth  of  his 
tory.  I  know  of  but  one  man  in  this  country  who  ever  made  it  a 
boast  that  he  was  "a  northern  man  with  southern  principles,"  and 
Tie  (turning  to  Mr.  Sumner)  was  your  candidate  for  the  Presidency  in 
1848.  (Applause  in  the  galleries.). 

THE  PEESIDIXG  OFFICER  (ME.  MASON). — Order,  order. 

ME.  DOUGLAS. — If  his  sarcasm  was  intended  for  Martin  Van  Bureu, 


136  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

it  involves  a  family  quarrel,  with  which  I  have  no  disposition  to 
interfere.  I  will  only  add  that  I  have  been  able  to  discover  nothing 
in  the  present  position  or  recent  history  of  that  distinguished  states 
man,  which  would  lead  me  to  covet  the  sobriquet  by  which  he  is 
known — "a  northern  man  with  southern  principles." 

Mr.  President,  the  senators  from  Ohio  and  Massachusetts  (Mr.  Chase 
and  Mr.  Sumner),  have  taken  the  liberty  to  impeach  my  motives  in 
bringing  forward  this  measure.  I  desire  to  know  by  what  right  they 
arraign  me,  or  by  what  authority  they  impute  to  me  other  and  dif 
ferent  motives  than  those  which  I  have  assigned.  I  have  shown  from 
the  record  that  I  advocated  and  voted  for  the  same  principles  and 
provisions  in  the  compromise  acts  of  1850,  which  are  embraced  in 
this  bill.  I  have  proven  that  I  put  the  same  construction  upon  those 
measures  immediately  after  their  adoption  that  is  given  in  the  report 
which  I  submitted  this  session  from  the  Committee  on  Territories. 
I  have  shown  the  legislature  of  Illinois  at  its  first  session,  after  those 
measures  were  enacted,  passed  resolutions  approving  them,  and  de 
claring  that  the  same  great  principles  of  self-government  should  be 
incorporated  into  all  Territorial  organizations.  Yet,  sir,  in  the  face  of 
these  facts,  these  senators  have  the  hardihood  to  declare  that  this  was 
all  an  "  afterthought"  on  my  part,  conceived  for  the  first  time  dur 
ing  the  present  session ;  and  that  the  measure  is  offered  as  a  bid  for 
Presidential  votes !  Are  they  incapable  of  conceiving  that  an  honest 
man  can  do  a  right  thing  from  worthy  motives?  I  must  be  permitted 
to  tell  those  senators  that  their  experience  in  seeking  political  prefer 
ment  does  not  furnish  a  safe  rule  by  which  to  judge  the  character  and 
principles  of  other  senators ! 

I  must  be  permitted  to  tell  the  senator  from  Ohio  that  I  did  not 
obtain  my  seat  in  this  body,  either  by  a  corrupt  bargain  or  a  dis 
honorable  coalition!  I  must  be  permitted  to  remind  the  senator 
from  Massachusetts  that  I  did  not  enter  into  any  combinations  or 
arrangements  by  which  my  character,  my  principles,  and  my  honor, 
were  set  up  at  public  auction  or  private  sale  in  order  to  procure  a 
seat  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  !  I  did  not  come  into  the 
Senate  by  any  such  means. 

ME.  WELLEE. — But  there  are  some  men  whom  I  know  that  did. 

ME.  CHASE  (to  Mr.  Weller.)  Do  you  say  that  I  came  here  by  a 
bargain  ?  Whoever  says  that  I  came  here  by  a  corrupt  bargain  states 
what  is  false. 

ME.  DOUGLAS. — It  will  not  do  for  the  senator  from  Ohio  to  return 
offensive  expressions  after  what  I  have  said  and  proven.  Nor  can 
I  permit  him  to  change  the  issue,  and  thereby  divert  public  attention 
from  the  enormity  of  his  offence,  in  charging  me  with  unworthy 
motives ;  while  performing  a  high  public  duty,  in  obedience  to  the 
expressed  wish  and  known  principles  of  my  State.  I  choose  to 
maintain  my  own  position,  and  leave  the  public  to  ascertain,  )t'  they 
do  not  understand  how  and  by  what  means  he  was  elected  to  the 
Senate. 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  137 

MR.  CHASE. — If  the  senator  will  allow  me,  I  will  say,  in  reply  to 
the  remarks  which  the  senator  has  just  made,  that  I  did  not  under 
stand  him  as  calling  upon  me  for  any  explanation  of  the  statement 
which  he  said  was  made  in  regard  to  a  Presidential  bid.  The  exact 
statement  in  the  address  was  this — it  was  a  question  addressed  to  the 
people:  "Would  they  allow  their  dearest  rights  to  be  made  the 
hazards  of  a  Presidential  game?"  That  was  the  exact  expression. 
Now,  sir,  it  is  well  known  that  all  these  great  measures  in  the  country 
are  influenced,  more  or  less,  by  reference  to  the  great  public  canvasses 
which  are  going  on  from  time  to  time.  I  certainly  did  not  intend 
to  impute  to  the  senator  from  Illinois — and  I  desire  always  to  do 
justice — in  that  any  improper  motive.  I  do  not  think  it  is  an 
unworthy  ambition  to  desire  to  be  a  President  of  the  United  States. 
I  do  not  think  that  the  bringing  forward  of  a  measure  with  refer 
ence  to  that  object  would  be  an  improper  thing,  if  the  measure  be 
proper  in  itself.  I  differ  from  the  senator  in  my  judgment  of  the 
measure.  I  do  not  think  the  measure  is  a  right  one.  In  that  I 
express  the  judgment  which  I  honestly  entertain.  I  do  not  condemn 
his  judgment,  1  do  not  make,  and  I  do  not  desire  to  make,  any  perso 
nal  imputations  upon  him  in  reference  to  a  great  public  question. 

ME.  DOUGLAS. — I  wish  to  examine  the  explanation  of  the  senator 
from  Ohio,  and  see  whether  I  ought  to  accept  it  as  satisfactory.  He 
has  quoted  the  language  of  the  address.  It  is  undeniable  that  that 
language  clearly  imputed  to  me  the  design  of  bringing  forward  this 
bill  with  a  view  of  securing  my  own  election  to  the  Presidency. 
Then,  by  way  of  excusing  himself  for  imputing  to  me  such  a  pur 
pose,  the  senator  says  that  he  does  not  consider  it  "  an  unworthy 
ambition;"  and  hence  he  says  that,  in  making  the  charge,  he  does 
not  impugn  my  motives.  I  must  remind  him  that,  in  addition  to 
that  insinuation,  he  only  said,  in  the  same  address,  that  my  bill  was  a 
"criminal  betrayal  of  precious  rights;"  he  only  said  it  was  "an 
atrocious  plot  against  freedom  and  humanity;"  he  only  said  that  it 
was  " meditated  bad  faith;"  he  only  spoke  significantly  of  "servile 
demagogues;"  he  only  called  upon  the  preachers  of  the  Gospel  and 
the  people  at  their  public  meetings  to  denounce  and  resist  such  a 
monstrous  iniquity.  In  saying  all  this,  and  much  of  the  same  sort, 
he  now  assures  me  in  the  presence  of  the  Senate,  that  he  did  not 
mean  the  charge  to  imply  an  "unworthy  ambition ;"  that  it  was  not 
intended  as  a  "  personal  imputation  "  upon  my  motives  or  character ; 
and  that  he  meant  "no  personal  disrepect"  to  me  as  the  author  of 
the  measure.  In  reply,  I  will  content  myself  with  the  remark,  that 
there  is  a  very  wide  difference  of  opinion  between  the  senator  from 
Ohio  and  myself  in  respect  to  the  meaning  of  words,  and  especially 
in  regard  to  the  line  of  conduct  which,  in  a  public  man,  does  not 
constitute  an  unworthy  ambition. 

ME.  STJMNEE. — Will  the  senator  from  Illinois  yield  the  floor  to  me 
for  a  moment  ? 

ME.  DOUGLAS. — As  I  presume  it  is  on  the  same  point,  I  wi'll  hear 
the  testhnouy. 


138       THE  LIFE  AND  SPEECHES  OF 

ME.  SUMNEE. — Mr.  President,  I  shrink  always  instinctively  from 
any  effort  to  repel  a  personal  assault.  I  do  not  recognize  the  juris 
diction  of  this  body  to  try  rny  election  to  the  Senate  ;  but  I  do  state, 
in  reply  to  the  senator  from  Illinois,  that  if  he  means  to.  suggest  that 
I  came  into  the  body  by  any  waiver  of  principles ;  by  any  abandon 
ment  of  my  principles  of  any  kind ;  by  any  effort  or  activity  of  my 
own,  in  any  degree,  he  states  that  which  cannot  be  sustained  by  tlio 
facts.  I  never  sought,  in  any  way,  the  office  which  I  now  hold ; 
nor  was  I  a  party,  in  any  way,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  those  efforts 
which  placed  me  here. 

ME.  DOUGLAS. — Sir,  the  senator  from  Massachusetts  comes  up  with 
a  very  bold  front,  and  denies  the  right  of  any  man  to  put  him  on 
defence  for  the  manner  of  his  election.  He  says  it  is  contrary  to  his 
principles  to  engage  in  personal  assaults.  If  he  expects  to  avail  him 
self  of  the  benefit  of  such  a  plea,  he  should  act  in  accordance  with 
his  professed  principles,  and  refrain  from  assaulting  the  character 
and  impugning  the  motives  of  better  men  than  himself.  Everybody 
knows  that  he  came  here  by  a  coalition  or  combination  between 
political  parties  holding  opposite  and  hostile  opinions.  But  it  is  not 
my  purpose  to  go  into  the  morality  of  the  matters  involved  in  his 
election.  The  public  know  the  history  of  that  notorious  coalition, 
and  have  formed  its  judgment  upon  it.  It  will  not  do  for  the  senator 
to  say  that  he  was  not  a  party  to  it,  for  he  thereby  betrays  a  con 
sciousness  of  the  immorality  of  the  transaction,  without  acquitting 
himself  of  the  responsibilities  which  justly  attach  to  him.  As  well 
might  the  receiver  of  stolen  goods  deny  any  responsibility  for  the 
larceny,  while  luxuriating  in  the  proceeds  of  the  crime,  as  the  sena 
tor  to  avoid  the  consequences  resulting  from  the  mode  of  his  election, 
while  he  clings  to  the  office.  I  must  be  permitted  to  remind  him  of 
what  he  certainly  can  never  forget,  that  when  he  arrived  here  to 
take  his  seat  for  the  first  time,  so  firmly  were  senators  impressed 
with  the  conviction  that  he  had  been  elected  by  dishonorable  and 
corrupt  means,  there  were  very  few  who,  for  a  long  time,  could 
deem  it  consistent  with  personal  honor  to  hold  private  intercourse 
with  him.  So  general  was  that  impression,  that  for  a  long  time  ho 
was  avoided  and  shunned  as  a  person  unworthy  of  the  association 
of  gentlemen.  Gradually,  howe  rer,  these  injurious  impressions  were 
worn  away  by  his  bland  manners  and  amiable  deportment ;  and  I 
regret  that  the  senator  should  now,  by  a  violation  of  all  the  rules  of 
courtesy  and  propriety,  compel  me  to  refresh  his  mind  upon  these  un 
welcome  reminiscences. 

ME.  CHASE.— If  the  senator  refers  to  me,  he  is  stating  a  fact  of 
which  I  have  no  knowledge  at  all.  I  came  here 

ME.  DOUGLAS. — I  was  not  speaking  of  the  senator  from  Ohio,  but 
of  his  confederate  in  slander,  the  senator  from  Massachusetts  (Mr. 
Sumner).  I  have  a  word  now  to  say  to  the  other  senator  from  Ohio 
(Mr.  Wade),  On  the  day  when  1  exposed  this  abolition  address,  so 
full  of  slanders  and  calumnies,  he  arose  and  stated  that,  although  his 
name  was  signed  to  it,  he  had  never  read  it;  and  so  willing  was  he 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  139 

to  indorse  an  abolition  document,  that  he  signed  it  in  blank,  with 
out  knowing  what  it  contained. 

The  senator  from  New  York  (Mr.  Seward),  when  I  was  about  to 
call  him  to  account  for  this  slanderous  production,  promptly  denied 
that  he  ever  signed  the  document.  Now,  I  say,  it  has  been  circu 
lated  with  his  name  attached  to  it ;  then  I  want  to  know  of  the 
senators  who  sent  out  the  document,  who  forged  the  name  of  the 
senator  from  New  York  ? 

ME.  CHASE. — I  am  glad  that  the  senator  has  asked  that  question. 
I  have  only  to  say  in  reference  to  that  matter,  that  I  have  not  the 
slightest  knowledge  in  regard  to  the  manner  in  which  various  names 
were  appended  to  that  document.  It  was  prepared  to  be  signed,  and 
was  signed,  by  the  gentlemen  here  who  are  known  as  Independent 
Democrats,  and  how  any  other  names  came  to  be  added  to  it  is  more 
than  I  can  tell. 

MB.  DOUGLAS. — It  is  not  a  satisfactory  answer,  for  those  who  con 
fess  to  the  preparation  and  publication  of  a  document  filled  with 
insult  and  calumny,  with  forged  names  attached  to  it  for  the  purpose 
of  imparting  to  it  respectability,  to  interpose  a  technical  denial  that 
they  committed  the  crime.  Somebody  did  forge  other  people's 
names  to  that  document.  The  senators  from  Ohio  and  Massachusetts 
(Mr.  Chase  and  Mr.  Sumner),  plead  guilty  to  the  authorship  and  pub 
lication  ;  upon  them  rests  the  responsibility  of  showing  who  com 
mitted  the  forgery. 

Mr.  President,  I  have  done  with  these  personal  matters.  I  regret, 
the  necessity  which  compelled  me  to  devote  so  much  time  to  them. 
All  I  have  done  and  said  has  been  in  the  way  of  self-defence,  as  the 
Senate  can  bear  me  witness. 

Mr.  President,  I  have  also  occupied  a  good  deal  of  time  in  exposing 
the  cant  of  these  gentlemen  about  the  sanctity  of  the  Missouri  Com 
promise,  and  the  dishonor  attached  to  the  violation  of  plighted  faith. 
I  have  exposed  these  matters  in  order  to  show  that  the  object  of 
these  men  is  to  withdraw  from  public  attention  the  real  principle 
involved  in  the  bill.  They  well  know  that  the  abrogation  of  tho 
Missouri  Compromise  is  the  incident  and  not  the  principal  of  the  bill. 
They  well  understand  that  the  report  of  the  committee  and  the  bill 
propose  to  establish  the  principle  in  all  Territorial  organizations,  that 
the  question  of  slavery  shall  be  referred  to  the  people  to  regulate  for 
themselves,  and  that  such  legislation  should  be  had  as  was  necessary 
to  remove  all  legal  obstructions  to  the  free  exercise  of  this  right  by 
the  people. 

The  eighth  section  of  the  Missouri  Act  standing  in  the  way  of  this 
great  principle  must  be  rendered  inoperative  and  void  whether  ex 
pressly  repealed  or  not,  in  order  to  give  the  people  the  power  of  regu 
lating  their  own  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only 
to  the  Constitution. 

Now,  sir,  if  these  gentlemen  have  entire  confidence  in  the  correct 
ness  of  their  own  position,  why  do  they  not  meet  the  isi'ie  boldly 


140  THE     LIFE     AND      SPEECHES     OF 

and  fairly,  and  controvert  the  soundness  of  this  great  principle  of 
popular  sovereignty  in  obedience  to  the  Constitution  ?  They  know 
full  well  that  this  was  the  principle  upon  which  the  colonies  separa 
ted  from  the  crown  of  Great  Britain,  the  principle  upon  which  tlio 
battles  of  the  Kevolution  were  fought,  and  the  principle  upon  which 
our  republican  system  was  founded.  They  cannot  be  ignorant  of  the 
fact  that  the  Revolution  grew  out  of  the  assertion  of  the  right  on  the 
part  of  the  imperial  government  to  interfere  with  the  internal  affairs 
and  domestic  concerns  of  the  colonies.  In  this  connection  I  will 
invite  attention  to  a  few  extracts  fr©m  the  instructions  of  the  differ 
ent  colonies  to  their  delegates  in  the  Continental  Congress,  with  a 
view  of  forming  such  a  union  as  would  enable  them  to  make  success 
ful  resistance  to  the  efforts  of  the  crown  to  destroy  the  fundamental 
principle  of  all  free  government  by  interfering  with  the  domestic 
affairs  of  the  colonies. 

I  will  begin  with  Pennsylvania,  whose  devotion  to  the  principles 
of  human  liberty,  and  the  obligations  of  the  Constitution,  has 
acquired  for  her  the  proud  title  of  the  Key-stone  in  the  arch  of 
republican  States.  In  her  instructions  is  contained  the  following 
reservation : 

"  Reserving  to  the  people  of  this  colony  thft  sole  and  exclusive  right  of  regu 
lating  the  internal  government  and  police  of  the  same." 

And,  in  a  subsequent  instruction,  in  reference  to  suppressing  the 
British  authority  in  the  colonies,  Pennsylvania  uses  the  following 
emphatic  language : 

"  Unanimously  declare  our  willingaess  to  concur  in  a  vote  of  the  Congress 
declaring  the  United  Colonies  free  and  independent  States,  provided  the  form 
ing  the  government  and  the  regulation  of  the  internal  police  of  this  colony  be 
always  reserved  to  the  people  of  the  said  colony." 

Connecticut,  in  authorizing  her  delegates  to  vote  for  the  Declara 
tion  of  Independence,  attached  to  it  the  following  condition : 

"  Saving  that  the  administration  of  government,  and  the  power  of  forming 
governments  for,  and  the  regulation  of  the  internal  concerns  and  police  of 
each  colony,  ought  to  be  left  and  remain  to  the  respective  colonial  legisla 
tures." 


]S"ew  Hampshire  annexed  this  proviso  to  her  instructions 
delegates  to  vote  for  independence  : 


to  her 


"  Provided  the  regulation  of  our  internal  police  be  under  the  direction  of  our 
own  assembly." 

New  Jersey  imposed  the  following  condition: 

"  Always  observing  that,  whatever  plan  of  confederacy  you  enter  into,  the 
regulating  the  internal  police  of  this  province  is  to  be  reserved  to  the  colonial 
legislature." 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS. 

Maryland  gave  her  consent  to  the  Declaration  of  Independence 
upon  the  condition  contained  in  this  proviso  : 

"  And  that  said  colony  will  hold  itself  bound  by  the  resolutions  of  a  majority 
of  the  United  Colonies  in  the  premises,  provided  the  sole  and  exclusive' right 
of  regulating  the  internal  government  and  police  of  that  colony  be  reserved  to 
tne  people  thereof." 

Virginia  annexed  the  following  condition  to  her  instructions  to 
vote  for  the  Declaration  of  Independence  : 

"  Provided  that  the  power  of  forming  government  for,  and  the  regulations 
of  the  internal  concerns  of  the  colony,  be  left  to  respective  colonial  legisla 
tures." 

I  will  not  weary  the  Senate  in  multiplying  evidence  upon  this 
point.  It  is  apparent  that  the  Declaration  of  Independence  had  its 
origin  in  the  violation  of  that  great  fundamental  principle  which 
secured  to  the  people  of  the  colonies  the  right  to  regulate  their  own 
domestic  atfairs  in  their  own  way  :  and  that  the  Revolution  resulted 
in  the  triumph  of  that  principle,  and  the  recognition  of  the  right  as 
serted  by  it.  Abolitionism  proposes  to  destroy  the  right,  and  extin 
guish  the  principle  for  which  our  forefathers  waged  a  seven  years' 
bloody  war,  and  upon  which  our  whole  system  of  free  government 
is  founded.  They  not  only  deny  the  Application  of  this  principle  to 
the  Territories,  but  insist  upon  fastening  the  prohibition  upon  all  the 
States  to  be  formed  out  of  those  Territories.  Therefore,  the  doctrine 
of  the  abolitionists — the  doctrine  of  the  opponents  of  the  Nebraska 
and  Kansas  Bill,  and  of  the  advocates  of  the  Missouri  restriction — 
demand  Congressional  interference  with  slavery,  not  only  in  the  Ter 
ritories,  but  in  all  the  new  States  to  be  formed  therefrom.  It  is  the 
same  doctrine  when  applied  to  the  Territories  and  new  States  of  this 
Union,  which  the  British  government  attempted  to  enforce  by  th« 
sword  upon  the  American  colonies.  It  is  this  fundamental  principle 
of  self-government  which  constitutes  the  distinguishing  feature  of 
the  Nebraska  Bill.  The  opponents  of  the  principle  are  consistent  in 
opposing  the  bill.  I  do  not  blame  them  for  their  opposition.  I  only 
ask  them  to  meet  the  issue  fairly  and  openly,  by  acknowledging  that 
they  are  opposed  to  the  principle  which  it  is  the  object  of  the  bill  to 
carry  into  operation.  It  seems  that  there  is  no  power  on  earth,  no 
intellectual  power,  no  mechanical  power  that  can  bring  them  to  a 
fa»r  discussion  of  the  true  issue.  If  they  hope  to  delude  the  people, 
and  escape  detection  for  any  considerable  length  of  time  under  the 
catch-word  ''Missouri  Compromise,"  and  "faith  of  compacts,"  they 
will  find  that  the  people  of  this  country  have  more  penetration  and 
intelligence  than  they  have  given  them  credit  for. 

Mr.  President,  there  is  an  important  fact  connected  with  this  sla 
very  resolution,  which  should  never  be  lost  sight  of.  It  has  always 
arisen  from  one  and  the  same  cause.  Whenever  that  cause  lias  been 


142  THE     LIFE     AND      SPEECHES     OF 

removed,  the  agitation  lias  ceased  ;  and  whenever  the  cause  has  been 
renewed,  the  agitation  has  sprung  into  existence.  That  cause  is,  and 
ever  has  been,  the  attempt  on  the  part  of  Congress  to  interfere  with 
the  question  of  slavery  in  the  Territories  and  new  States  formed 
therefrom.  Is  it  not  wise,  then,  to  confine  our  action  within  the 
sphere  of  our  legitimate  duties,  and  leave  this  vexed  question  so  take 
care  of  itself  in  each  State  and  Territory,  according  to  the  wishes  of 
the  people  thereof,  in  conformity  to  the  forms  and  in  subjection  to 
the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  ? 

The  opponents  of  the  bill  tell  us  that  agitation  is  no  part  of  their 
policy,  that  their  great  desire  is  peace  and  harmony  ;  and  they  com 
plain  bitterly  that  I  should  have  disturbed  the  repose  of  the  country 
by  the  introduction  of  this  measure.  Let  me  ask  these  professed 
friends  of  peace  and  avowed  enemies  of  agitation,  how  the  issue 
could  have  been  avoided  ?  They  tell  me  that  I  should  have  let  the 
question  alone — that  is,  that  I  should  have  left  Nebraska  unorganized, 
the  people  unprotected,  and  the  Indian  barrier  in  existence,  until  the 
swelling  tide  of  emigration  should  burst  through,  and  accomplish  by 
violence  what  it  is  the  part  of  wisdom  and  statesmanship  to  direct 
and  regulate  by  law.  How  long  could  you  have  postponed  action 
with  safety  ?  How  long  could  you  maintain  that  Indian  barrier,  and 
restrain  the  onward  march  of  civilization.  Christianity,  and  free 
government  by  a  barbarian  wall  ?  Do  you  suppose  that  you  could 
keep  that  vast  country  a  howling  wilderness  in  all  time  to  come, 
roamed  over  by  hostile  savages,  cutting  off  all  safe  communication 
between  our  Atlantic  and  Pacific  possessions?  I  tell  you  that  the 
time  for  action  has  come,  and  cannot  be  postponed.  It  is  a  case  in 
which  the  u  let-alone  "  policy  would  precipitate  a  crisis  which  must 
inevitably  result  in  violence,  anarchy,  and  strife. 

You  cannot  fix  bounds  to  the  onward  inarch  of  this  great  and 
growing  country.  You  cannot  fetter  the  limbs  of  the  young  giant. 
He  will  burst  all  your  chains.  He  will  expand,  and  grow,  and  in 
crease,  and  extend  civilization,  Christianity,  and  liberal  principles. 
Then,  sir,  if  you  cannot  check  the  growth  of  the  country  in  that 
direction,  is  it  not  the  part  of  wisdom  to  look  the  danger  in  the  face, 
and  provide  for  an  event  which  you  cannot  avoid?  I  tell  you,  sir, 
you  must  provide  for  continuous  lines  of  settlement  from  the  Missis 
sippi  Valley  to  the  Pacific  Ocean.  And  in  making  this  provision, 
you  must  decide  upon  what  principles  the  Territories  shall  be  or 
ganized;  in  other  words,  whether  the  people  shall  be  allowed  to 
regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  according  to 
the  provisions  of  this  bill,  or  whether  the  opposite  doctrine  of  Con 
gressional  interference  is  to  prevail.  Postpone  it,  if  you  will;  but 
whenever  you  do  act,Hhis  question  must  be  met  and  decided. 

The  Missouri  Compromise  was  interference ;  the  Compromise  of 
1850  was  non-interference,  leaving  the  people  to  exercise  their  rights 
under  the  Constitution.  The  Committee  on  Territories  were  com 
pelled  to  act  on  this  subject.  I,  as  their  chairman,  was  bound  to 


STEPHEN     A.    DOUGLAS.  14:3 

meet  tne  question.  I  chose  to  take  the  responsibility,  regardless  of 
consequence  personal  to  myself.  I  should  have  done  the  same  tiling 
last  year,  if  there  had  been  time  :  but  we  know,  considering  the  late 
period  at  which  the  bill  then  reached  us  from  the  House,  that  there 
was  not  sufficient  time  to  consider  the  question  fully,  and  to  prepare 
a  report  upon  the  subject.  I  was  therefore  persuaded  by  friends  to 
allow  the  bill  to  be  reported  to  the  Senate,  in  order  that  such  action 
might  be  taken  as  should  be  deemed  wise  and  proper. 

The  bill  was  never  taken  up  for  action,  the  last  night  of  the  ses 
sion  having  been  exhausted  in  debate  on  the  motion  to  take  up  the 
bill.  This  session,  the  measure  was  introduced  by  my  friend  from 
Iowa  (Mr.  Dodge)  and  referred  to  the  Territorial  Committee  during 
the  first  week  of  the  session.  We  have  abundance  of  time  to  con 
sider  the  subject;  it  was  a  matter  of  pressing  necessity,  and  there 
was  no  excuse  for  not  meeting  it  directly  and  fairly.  We  were  com 
pelled  to  take  our  position  upon  the  doctrine  either  of  intervention 
or  non-intervention.  We  chose  the  latter,  for  two  reasons ;  first, 
because  we  believed  that  the  principle  was  right ;  and,  second,  be 
cause  it  was  the  principle  adopted  in  1850,  to  which  the  two  great 
political  parties  of  the  country  were  solemnly  pledged. 

There  is  another  reason  why  I  desire  to  see  this  principle  recog 
nized  as  a  rule  of  action  in  all  time  to  come.  It  will  have  the  effect 
to  destroy  all  sectional  parties  and  sectional  agitations.  If,  in  the 
language  of  the  report  of  the  committee,  you  withdraw  the  slavery 
question  from  the  halls  of  Congress  and  the  political  arena,  and  com 
mit  it  to  the  arbitrament  of  those  who  are  immediately  interested  in 
and  alone  responsible  for  its  consequences,  there  is  nothing  left  out 
of  which  sectional  parties  can  be  organized.  It  never  was  done,  an£ 
never  can  be  done  on  the  bank,  tariff,  distribution,  or  any  other  par 
ty  issue  which  has  existed,  or  may  exist,  after  this  slavery  question 
is  withdrawn  from  politics.  On  every  other  political  question  these 
have  always  supporters  and  opponents  in  every  portion  of  the  Union 
— in  each  State,  county,  village,  and  neighborhood — residing  togeth 
er  in  harmony  and  good-fellowship,  and  combating  each  othe-r's  opin 
ions  and  correcting  each  other's  errors  in  a  spirit  of  kindness  and 
friendship.  These  differences  of  opinion  between  neighbors  and 
friends,  ami  the  discussions  that  grow  out  of  them,  and  the  sympa 
thy  which  each  feels  with  the  advocates  of  his  own  opinions  in  eve 
ry  other  portion  of  this  wide-spread  republic,  adds  an  overwhelming 
and  irresistible  moral  weight  to  the  strength  of  the  confederacy. 

Aii'ection  for  the  Union  can  never  be  alienated  or  diminished  by 
any  other  party  issues  than  those  which  are  joined  upon  sectional 
or  geographical  lines.  When  the  people  of  the  North  shall  all  be 
rallied  under  one  banner,  and  the  whole  South  marshalled  under  an 
other  banner,  and  each  section  excited  to  frenzy  and  madness  by 
hostility  to  the  institutions  of  the  other,  then  the  patriot  may  well 
tremble  for  the  perpetuity  of  the  Union.  Withdraw  the  slavery 
question  from  the  political  arena,  and  remove  it  to  tho  States  and 


144  THE     LIFE     AND      SPEECHES     OF 

Territories,  each  to  decide  for  itself,  such  a  catastrophe  can  never 
happen.  Then  you  will  never  be  able  to  tell,  by  any  senator's  vote 
for  or  against  any  measure,  from  what  State  or  section  of  the  Unisn 
he  comes. 

"Why,  then,  can  we  not  withdraw  this  vexed  question  from  poli 
tics  ?  Why  can  we  not  adopt  the  principle  of  this  bill  as  a  rule  of 
action  in  all  new  Territorial  organizations  ?  Why  can  we  not  deprive 
these  agitators  of  their  vocation,  and  render  it  impossible  for  sena 
tors  to  come  here  upon  bargains  on  the  slavery  question?  I  believe 
that  the  peace,  the  harmony,  and  perpetuity  of  the  Union  require  us 
to  go  back  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Eevolution,  to  the  principles  of 
the  Constitution — the  Compromise  of  1850,  and  leave  the  people, 
under  the  Constitution,  to  do  as  they  may  see  proper  in  respect  to 
their  own  internal  affairs. 

Mr.  President,  I  have  not  brought  this  question  forward  as  a  nor 
thern  man  or  as  a  southern  man.  I  am  unwilling  to  recognize  such 
divisions  and  distinctions.  I  have  brought  it  forward  as  an  Ameri 
can  senator,  representing  a  State  which  is  true  to  this  principle,  and 
which  has  approved  of  my  action  in  respect  to  the  Nebraska  Bill. 
i'  have  brought  it  forward  not  as  an  act  of  justice  to  the  South  more 
Uiau  to  the  North.  I  have  presented  it  especially  as  an  act  of  justice 
•$o  the  people  of  those  Territories,  and  of  the  States  to  be  formed 
therefrom,  now  and  in  all  time  to  come. 

I  have  nothing  to  say  about  northern  rights  or  southern  rights.  I 
know  of  no  such  divisions  or  distinctions  under  the  Constitution. 
The  bill  does  equal  and  exact  justice  to  the  whole  Union,  and  every 
part  of  it ;  it  violates  the  rights  of  no  State  or  Territory,  but  places 
each  on  a  perfect  equality,  and  leaves  the  people  thereof  to  the  free 
enjoyment  of  all  their  rights  under  the  Constitution. 

>.'ow,  sir,  I  wish  to  say  to  our  southern  friends,  that  if  they  desire  to 
sec  this  great  principle  carried  out,  n  DW  is  their  time  to  rally  around 
it,  to  cherish  it,  preserve  it,  make  it  the  rule  of  action  in  all  future 
time.  If  they  fail  to  do  it  now,  and  thereby  allow  the  doctrine  of 
interference  to  prevail,  upon  their  heads  the  consequence  of  that  in 
terference  must  rest.  To  our  northern  friends,  on  the  other  hand,  I 
desire  to  say,  that  from  this  day  henceforward,  they  must  rebuke  the 
slander  which  has  been  uttered  against  the  South,  that  they  desire  to 
legislate  slavery  into  the  Territories.  The  South  has  vindicated  her 
sincerity,  her  honor  on  that  point,  by  bringing  forward  a  provision, 
negativing,  in  express  terms,  any  such  efl'ect  as  the  result  of  this  bill. 
I  am  rejoiced  to  know  that,  while  the  proposition  to  abrogate  the 
eighth  section  of  the  Missouri  Act  comes  from  a  free  State,  the  pro 
position  to  negative  the  conclusion  that  slavery  is  thereby  introduced 
comes  from  a  slaveholding  State.  Thus,  both  sides  furnish  conclu 
sive  evidence  that  they  go  for  the  principle,  and  the  principle  only, 
and  desire  to  take  no  advantage  of  any  possible  misconstruction. 

Mr.  President,  I  feel  that  I  owe  an  apology  to  the  Senate  for  hav 
ing  occupied  their  attention  so  long,  and  a  still  greater  apology  fo? 


STEPHEN     A.    DOUGLAS.  145 

having  discussed  the  question  in  such  an  incoherent  and  desultory 
manner.  But  I  could  not  forbear  to  claim  the  right  of  closing  this 
debate.  I  thought  gentlemen  would  recognize  its  propriety  when 
they  saw  the  manner  in  which  I  was  assailed  and  misrepresented  in 
the  course  of  this  discussion,  and  especially  by  assaults  still  more' 
disreputable,  in  some  portions  of  the  country.  These  assaults  have 
had  no  other  effect  upon  me  than  to  give  me  courage  and  energy  for 
a  still  more  resolute  discharge  of  duty.  I  say  frankly  that,  in  my 
opinion,  this  measure  will  be  as  popular  at  the  North  as  at  the  South, 
when  its  provisions  and  principles  shall  have  been  fully  developed 
and  become  well  understood.  The  people  at  the  JSTorth  are  attached 
to  the  principles  of  self-government ;  and  you  cannot  convince  them 
that  that  is  self-government  which  deprives  a  people  of  the  right  of 
legislating  for  themselves,  and  compels  them  to  receive  laws  which 
are  forced  upon  them  by  a  legislature  in  which  they  are  not  repre 
sented.  "We  are  willing  to  stand  upon  this  great  principle  of  self- 
government  everywhere ;  and  it  is  to  us  a  proud  reflection  that,  in 
this  whole  discussion,  no  friend  of  the  bill  has  urged  an  argument  in 
its  favor  which  could  not  be  used  with  the  same  propriety  in  a  free 
State  as  in  a  slave  State,  and  vice  versa.  But  no  enemy  of  the  bill 
has  used  an  argument  which  would  bear  repetition  one  mile  across 
Mason  and  Dixon's  line.  Our  opponents  have  dealt  entirely  in  sec 
tional  appeals.  The  friends  of  the  bill  have  discussed  a  great  prin 
ciple  of  universal  application,  which  can  be  sustained  by  the  sanio 
reasons,  and  the  same  arguments,  in  every  time  and  in  every  corner 
of  the  Union. 


THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 


ON    BRITISH    AGGRESSION. 

On  the  7th  of  June,  1858,  the  subject  of  British  Aggre* 
Bion  being  under  consideration,  Mr.  Douglas  said  : 

I  agree,  Mr.  President,  with  most  that  has  been  said  by  my  friend 
from  Georgia  (Mr.  Toombs),  and  especially  that  \ve  ought  to  deter 
mine  what  we  are  to  do  in  reference  to  the  outrages  upon  our  flag  in 
the  Gulf  of  Mexico  and  the  West  Indies  before  we  decide  the  amount 
of  money  we  shall  vote  for  war  purposes.  If  we  are  going  to  con 
tent  ourselves  with  simple  resolutions  that  we  will  not  submit  to  that 
which  we  have  resolved  for  half  a  century  should  never  be  repeated, 
I  see  no  use  in  additional  appropriations  for  navy  or  for  army ;  if  we 
are  going  to  be  contented  with  loud-sounding  speeches,  with  defiance 
to  the  British  lion,  with  resolutions  of  the  Senate  alone,  not  con 
curred  in  by  the  other  house,  conferring  no  power  on  the  Executive, 
merely  capital  for  the  country,  giving  no  power  to  the  Executive  to 
avenge  insults  or  prevent  their  repetition,  what  is  the  use  of  voting 
money?  I  find  that  patriotic  gentlemen  are  ready  to  talk  loud,  re 
solve  strong;  but  are  they  willing  to  appropriate  the  money — are 
they  willing  to  confer  on  the  Executive  power  to  repel  these  insults, 
and  to  avenge  them  whenever  they  may  be  perpetrated?  Let  us 
know  whether  wo  are  to  submit  and  protest,  or  whether  we  are  to 
authorize  the  President  to  resist  and  to  prevent  the  repetition  of 
these  offences.  If  senators  are  prepared  to  vote  for  a  law  reviving 
the  act  of  1839,  putting  the  army,  the  navy,  volunteers,  and  money 
at  the  disposal  of  the  President* to  prevent  the  repetition  of  these 
acts,  and.  to  punish  them  if  repeated,  then  I  am  ready  to  give  the 
ships  and  the  money ;  but  I  desire  to  know  whether  we  are  to  sub 
mit  to  these  insults  with  a  simple  protest,  or  whether  we  are  to  re 
pel  them. 

Gentlemen  ask  us  to  vote  ships  and  money,  and  they  talk  to  us 
about  the  necessity  of  a  ship  in  China,  and  about  outrages  in  Tam- 
pico,  and  disturbances  in  South  America,  and  Indian  difficulties  in 
Pnget  Sound.  Every  enemy  that  can  be  found  on  the  face  of  the 
earth  is  defied,  except  the  one  that  defies  us.  Bring  in  a  proposi 
tion  here  to  invest  the  President  with  power  to  repel  British  aggres 
sion  on  American  ships,  and  what  is  the  response?  High-sounding 
resolutions,  declaring  in  effect,  if  not  in  terms,  that  whereas  Great 
Britain  has  perpetrated  outrages  on  our  flag  and  our  shipping,  which 
are  intolerable  and  insufferable,  and  must  not  be  repeated  ;  therefore, 
if  she  does  so  again,  we  will  whip  Mexico,  or  we  will  pounce  down 
upon  Nicaragua,  or  we  will  get  up  a  fight  with  Costa  Rica,  or  we 
will  chastise  New  Granada,  or  we  will  punish  the  Chinese,  or  we 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  14:7 

will  repel  the  Indians  from  Pnget  Sound  (laughter)  ;  but  not  a  word 
about  Great  Britain !  What  I  desire  to  know,  is  whether  we  are  to 
meet  this  issue  with  Great  Britain  ?  I  am  told  we  shall  do  it  when 
we  are  prepared.  Sir,  when  will  you  be  prepared  to  repel  an  insult, 
unless  when  it  is  given  ? 

England  has  her  ships  of  war,  of  various  sizes,  searching  our  ves 
sels,  firing  across  their  bows,  firing  into  their  rigging,  subject 
ing  them  to  search,  not  only  in  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  but  in  the  Carib 
bean  sea  and  upon  the  Atlantic.  It  is  not  confined  to  one  captain, 
or  one  vessel,  or  one  locality,  but  the  outrages  are  committed  by 
various  ships,  by  the  Styx,  on  the  coast  of  Cuba ;  by  the  Forward, 
five  hundred  miles  east  of  there  ;  by  the  Buzzard,  a  thousand  miles 
from  Cuba.  Every  arrival  at  our  ports  brings  us  information  of  the 
repetition  of  these  offences,  clearly  demonstrating  the  fact  that  they 
are  not  accidental.  They  are  not  confined  to  one  locality.  They  are 
not  the  acts  of  one  ship  or  of  one  officer.  They  are  the  result  of 
orders  from  Great  Britain  to  execute  this  system  of  outrages  on  the 
American  flag  and  American  commerce.  Are  we  to  submit  to  it  ? 
If  so,  let  us  not  say  another  word  about  it,  pass  no  resolutions,  make 
no  speeches,  vote  no  extra  appropriations  that  we  would  not  vote  if 
these  things  had  not  occurred.  If,  on  the  contrary,  we  are  not  going  to 
submit  to  them,  why  not  act  as  we  did  on  the  northeastern  boundary 
question  in  1839  ?  "When  the  news  arrived  here  on  the  2d  of  March, 
1839,  that  an  American  citizen  had  been  taken  prisoner  on  the  dis 
puted  boundary  of  Maine,  showing  a  disposition  on  the  part  of  Great 
Britain  to  insist  on  her  claim  to  the  exclusive  possession  of  that 
country,  instantly  the  Senate,  by  a  unanimous  vote,  passed  a  bill 
authorizing  the  President  to  repel  any  attempt  on  the  part  of  Great 
Britain  to  enforce  that  claim,  and,  for  that  purpose,  putting  at  his 
disposal  the  army,  the  navy,  the  militia,  fifty  thousand  volunteers, 
and  ten  millions  of  money,  to  enable  him  to  execute  the  will  of  the 
nation  in  that  respect.  » 

Now,  sir,  why  not  revive  that  act,  striking  out  the  disputed  boun 
dary  and  inserting  "  her  claims  to  the  right  of  visitation  and  search," 
and  then  every  provision  of  that  bill  would  be  applicable  to  the  pre 
sent  case.  My  friend  from  Missouri  (Mr.  Green)  calls  my  attention 
to  the  vote  of  the  House  of  Representatives  on  that  occasion.  It 
stood  197  in  the  affirmative,  and  6  in  the  negative.  The  vote  in  the 
Senate  was  forty-one  in  the  affirmative,  none  in  the  negative.  Your 
Clays,  your  Calhouns,  your  Websters,  the  great  men  of  former  times, 
were  here  then  ;  men  differing  in  politics  in  times  of  high  party 
strife,  at  a  period  when  Mr.  Yan  Buren  was  President,  and  Clay, 
Webster,  and  Calhoun  led  the  opposition.  Still,  th®  moment  this 
outrage  was  perpetrated  by  Great  Britain  upon  our  rights,  all  party 
dissensions  were  hushed ;  the  opposition  and  the  administration 
stood  as  one  man  when  the  honor  of  the  nation  was  assaulted.  They 
did  not  hesitate  to  confer  upon  Mr.  Yan  Buren  the  power  to  resist 
the  outrages  committed  by  Great  Britain,  in  case  they  should  bw 
persevered  in. 


148  THE     LTFE     AND      SPEECHES      OF 

Why  not  now  revive  the  same  law  which  was  then  passed  by  a 
unanimous  yote  in  the  Senate,  and  with  only  six  dissenting  voices  in 
the  other  house,  and  confer  upon  President  Buchanan  the  same 
power  and  authority  which  was  then  conferred  upon  President  Van 
Buren  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Senator  Buchanan?  Do  that,  and  then 
I  am  prepared  to  vote  the  ships,  the  money,  the  men,  anything, 
everything,  necessary  to  indicate  our  firm  resolve.  Yes,  sir,  I  will 
go  further,  I  will  vote  the  ships  and  the  money  even  now,  trusting 
that  Congress,  before  it  adjourns,  will  arm  the  President  with  the 
necessary  power  and  authority  to  prevent  a  repetition  of  these  aggres 
sions.  I  ain,  however,  extremely  unwilling  to  bury  up  the  outrages  of 
Great  Britain  under  all  the  talk  and  noise  that  is  made  about  the  injuries 
perpetrated  by  the  South  American  republics.  I  know  that  in  South 
America  outrages  have  been  perpetrated  on  our  commerce,  on  our 
citizens  and  their  property,  which  ought  to  have  been  punished  on 
the  spot.  I  know  they  are  continuing,  and  will  continue,  from  day 
to  day,  and  year  to  year,  until  you  clothe  the  Executive  with  the 
authority  to  punish  them  as  promptly  as  the  British  government 
punish  similar  outrages  on  their  commerce  and  their  rights ;  but 
these  things  have  been  going  on  in  South  America  for  years.  They 
are  weak,  feeble,  unstable  powers,  entitled  to  our  sympathy  and  our 
contempt  mingled  together.  While  I  would  clothe  the  Executive 
with  power  to  punish  them,  I  would  only  do  it  after  I  had  avenged 
the  insults  perpetrated  by  Great  Britain,  or  I  would  in  the  same  act 
authorize  the  President  to  avenge  them. 

Sir,  I  tr.emble  for  the  fame  of  America,  for  her  honor,  and  for  her 
character,  when  we  shall  be  silent  in  regard  to  British  outrages ;  and 
avenge  ourselves  by  punishing  the  weaker  powers  instead  of  grap 
pling  with  the  stronger.  I  never  did  fancy  that  policy,  nor  admire 
that  chivalry  which  induced  a  man,  when  insulted  by  a  strong  man 
of  his  own  size,  to  say  that  he  would  whip  the  first  boy  he  found  in 
the  street,  in  order  to  vindicate  his  honor ;  er,  as  is  suggested  by  a 
gentleman  behind  me,  that  he  would  go  home  and  whip  his  wife 
(laughter),  in  order  to  show  his  courage,  inasmuch  as  he  was  afraid 
to  tackle  the  full  grown  man  who  had  committed  the  aggression. 

Sir,  these  outrages  cannot  be  concealed,  they  cannot  have  the  go 
by;  we  must  meet  them  face  to  face.  Now  is  the  time  when 
England  must  give  up  her  claim  to  search  American  vessels,  or  we 
must  be  silent  in  our  protests  and  resolutions  and  valorous  speeches 
against  that  claim.  It  will  not  do  to  raise  a  navy  for  the  Chinese 
seas,  nor  for  Puget  Sound,  nor  for  Mexico,  nor  for  the  South  Ameri 
can  republics.  It  may  be  used  for  those  purposes,  but  England 
must  first  be  dealt  with.  Sir,  we  shall  be  looked  upon  as  showing 
the  •vyhite  feather,  if  we  strike  a  blow  at  any  feeble  power,  until  these 
English  aggressions  and  insults  are  first  punished,  and  security  is 
obtained  that  they  are  not  to  be  repeated. 

I  shall  vote  for  the  amendment  offered  by  my  friend  from  Florida, 
under  the  authority  of  Committee  on  Naval  Affairs,  providing  for 
ten  sloops-of-war.  I  shall  also  vote  for  the  proposition  of  my  friend 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  149 

from  North  Carolina  for  the  ten  gun-boats.  I  wish  he  had  increased 
the  number  to  fifty,  because  I  understand  they  can  be  constructed 
for  about  $100,000  apiece,  and  $5,000,000  would  give  you  fifty  gun 
boats,  vessels  of  a  character  more  serviceable  for  coast  defence  than 
any  other  vessels  you  could  have.  They  could  enter  every  harbor, 
every  creek,  every  bay,  every  nook  where  it  is  necessary  to  afford 
protection,  and  each  one  of  them  singly  would  be  strong  enough  in 
time  of  war  to  capture  an  enemy's  merchant  vessel,  and  bring  it  into 
port  or  sink  it,  as  easily  as  a  seventy-four,  or  the  largest  class  of 
ships  of  war.  I  would  increase  the  number  of  gun-boats  to  fifty — I 
would  give  the  sloops  asked  for  by  the  committee,  but  I  would  never 
permit  this  Congress  to  adjourn,  after  all  the  resolutions  we  have  had 
reported  and  all  the  brave  speeches  we  have  made,  until  we  give  the 
President  power,  and  thereby  make  it  his  duty,  to  repel  in  future 
every  repetition  of  these  British  outrages  on  our  flag  ;  and  to  use  the 
army,  the  navy,  the  militia,  and  the  treasury,  to  any  extent  which 
may  be  necessary  for  that  purpose. 

I  concur  entirely  with  the  senator  from  Virginia  in  the  reasons  he 
has  given  for  the  necessity  of  applying  the  provisions  of  the  bill 
which  he  has  reported  from  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Eelations,  as 
a  substitute  for  one  I  introduced,  to  Mexico,  Nicaragua,  Costa  Kica 
and  ISTew  Granada ;  but  I  do  not  perceive  the  necessity  of  limiting 
the  application  to  those  countries,  and  riot  extending  it  beyond  them. 
If  his  objection  be  true  that  my  proposition  was  to  confer  a  war- 
making  power  upon  the  President,  then,  by  applying  the  whole 
power  of  these  provisions  to  Mexico,  and  the  other  three  countries, 
he  confers  a  war-making  power  to  that  extent.  I  suppose,  if  it  is  no 
violation  of  principle  to  give  the  President  a  war-making  power  as 
applied  to  one  country,  it  is  no  more  so  to  give  it  to  him  generally. 
The  objection  I  had  to  his  provision  was  this :  I  had  introduced  a 
bill  to  authorize  the  President,  in  cases  of  flagrant  violations  of  the 
law  of  nations,  under  circumstances  admitting  of  no  delay,  to  repel 
and  punish  the  aggression.  The  senator  from  Virginia  takes  the 
provisions  of  that  bill  and  indorses  them  as  to  four  feeble,  crippled 
powers,  and  omits  the  very  country  that  is  now  committing  outrages 
upon  our  flag  and  our  shipping.  I  had  introduced  a  bill,  general  in 
its  provisions,  applicable  to  England,  France,  Spain,  Mexico,  Central 
America,  South  America — everywhere  where  there  were  flagrant 
violation  upon  our  flag,  under  circumstances  admitting  of  no  delay. 

It  does  not  follow  that  for  every  belligerent  act  we  shall  declare 
war.  The  senator  from  Virginia,  in  his  report,  as  chairman  of  the 
Committee  on  Foreign  Eelations,  quoted  Chief  Justice  Marshall  to 
show  that  the  practice  of  the  right  of  search  was  a  belligerent  act. 
All  belligerent  acts  do  not  necessarily  produce  war.  You  may  repel 
them,  you  may  grant  letters  of  marque  and  reprisal — there  are 
various  remedies  short  of  war  for  repelling  and  redressing  belligerent 
acts.  It  docs  not  follow,  by  any  means,  when  one  nation  perpe 
trates  a  violation  of  right  against  another,  which,  of  itself,  is  a  bel- 


150  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

ligerent  act,  that  war  is  the  inevitable  consequence,  any  more  than 
it  follows,  when  one  gentleman  says  something  offensive  to  another, 
that  a  peremptory  challenge  is  a  necessary  result.  A  demand  for 
explanation  may  be  necessary.  There  are  preludes  to  a  declaration. 
So  it  is  between  nations.  There  may  be  a  belligerent  act  performed. 
It  leads  to  negotiation,  to  remonstrance.  "When  these  means  fail, 
then  the  question  comes,  whether  our  rights  or  our  honor  are 
involved  to  such  an  extent  as  to  make  it  imperative  to  go  to  war  as 
a  final  resort  ? 

If  this  violation  of  the  freedom  of  the  seas  were  a  new  thing ;  if 
the  assertion  of  the  right  to  search  American  vessels  were  now 
made  for  the  first,  or  evea  the  second  time,  we  might  not,  although 
treating  it  as  a  belligerent  act,  deem  it  necessary  to  go  to  war.  But 
when  the  question  has  gone  through  half  a  century  of  dispute ;  when 
it  has  reached  such  a  point  that  we  refuse  to  discuss  the  question  of 
right  any  further  ;  when  we  have  asserted  that  the  argument  is  ex 
hausted,  and  that  the  only  thing  left  is  to  resort  to  resistance  if  it  be 
persevered  in  any  further ;  it  will  not  do  for  us,  in  the  face  of  these 
outrages  repeated  each  day,  to  be  silent  with  regard  to  them,  and 
proceed  to  legislate  for  the  punishment  of  Mexico,  Nicaragua,  and 
other  weak  and  feeble  powers  at  a  distance.  The  bill  reported  by 
the  senator  from  Virginia  would  be  right  if  it  were  brought  for 
ward  at  a  time  when  the  aggravation  came  from  those  countries, 
and  not  from  England.  I  will  vote  for  it.  But  to  pass  that  by 
itself,  and  remain  silent  with  regard  to  these  British  outrages,  is  to 
confess  to  the  world  that  we  are  afraid  of  Great  Britain,  but  we  will 
maintain  our  courage  by  punishing  some  smaller,  feebler,  weaker 
power.  I  do  not  bring  forward  the  proposition  to  revive  the  act  of 
the  3d  of  March,  1839,  as  a  substitute  for  the  bill  reported  by  the 
senator  from  Virginia,  as  he  imagines.  On  the  contrary,  the  two 
bills  ought  to  go  together.  The  one  which  I  bring  forward  is 
applicable  to  England,  and  to  her  alone.  It  covers  the  present  quar 
rels  between  us  and  England ;  not  as  a  war  measure,  but  as  a  peace 
measure.  The  only  change  that  I  make  between  that  act,  as  1  bring 
it  forward  now,  and  as  it  was  in  the  shape  in  which  it  originally 
passed,  is  to  strike  out  the  words  "territory  in  dispute,"  and  insert 
"  the  claim  of  the  right  of  search."  Then  the  two  cases  are  paral 
lel,  and  the  provision  is  as  applicable  to  one  as  it  is  to  the  other. 

Sir,  there  was  one  member  of  this  body,  who,  when  the  measure 
was  brought  in,  in  1839,  was  disposed  to  treat  it  as  an  act  of  war, 
until  the  great  minds  of  the  Senate,  the  patriots  of  that  day,  came 
forward,  and  said :  no,  Great  Britain  is  performing  a  belligerent  act ; 
we  must  resist  it  at  all  hazards ;  if  she  perseveres  in  the  wrong, 
then  the  consequences  be  on  her  head,  for  having  persevered  in  tho 
wrong.  Hence,  you  find  that  Clay,  Calhoun,  Webster,  Buchanan, 
and  the  leaders  of  the  Senate  of  all  parties  of  that  day,  united  with 
entire  unanimity  in  conferring  upon  President  Van  Buren  the  power 
to  resist  it.  One  man  only  hesitated.  A  distinguished  and  re- 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  151 

spected  senator  from  New  Jersey  made  the  very  point  that  is  now 
being  made,  as  to  its  being  an  act  of  war ;  but  a  distinguished  sena 
tor  from  Mississippi  appealed  to  him,  after  a  prelimin  ary  vote  had 
been  taken,  and  it  was  ascertained  that  the  Senate  were  unanimous 
with  one  exception,  not  to  persevere  in  his  opposition,  but  allow  the 
Senate  to  stand  unanimous  in  the  assertion  of  a  principle  upon  which 
all  agreed;  and  Mr.  Southard,  in  deference  to  the  opinion  of  the 
remainder  of  the  Senate,  waived  his  objections,  and  allowed  the  bill 
to  pass  by  a  unanimous  vote. 

Sir,  did  it  turn  out  to  be  a  measure  of  war  then  ?  On  the  con 
trary,  it  resulted  in  peace,  and  you  were  saved  from  a  war  with 
Great  Britain  on  the  northeastern  boundary  question,  by  the  unani 
mity  of  Congress,  at  that  time,  in  preparing  to  repel  the  assault. 
The  vote  in  the  Senate  was  unanimous,  and  in  the  House  of  Repre 
sentatives  it  was  197  against  6.  This  unanimity  among  the  American 
people,  as  manifested  by  their  representatives,  saved  the  two  coun 
tries  from  war,  and  preserved  peace  between  England  and  the  United 
States  upon  that  question.  If  the  Senate  had  been  nearly  equally 
divided  in  1839  ;  if  there  had  been  but  half  a  dozen  majority  for  the 
passage  of  that  measure  ;  if  the  vote  had  been  nearly  divided  in  the 
House  of  Representatives,  England  would  have  taken  courage  from  the 
divisions  in  our  own  councils  ;  she  would  have  pressed  her  claim  to  a 
point  that  would  have  been  utterly  inadmissible,  and  incompatible 
with  our  honor,  and  war  would  have  been  the  inevitable  conseqiien.ee. 

The  true  peace  measure  is  that  which  resents  the  insult  and  re 
dresses  the  wrong  promptly  upon  the  spot  with  a  unanimity  that 
shows  the  nation  cannot  be  divided.  Unanimity  now,  prompt  action, 
and  determined  resistance  to  this  claim  of  the  right  of  search  is  the 
best  peace  measure,  and  the  only  peace  measure  to  which  you  can 
resort.  You  have  said  that  this  nation  will  not  submit  to  the  right 
of  search ;  every  department  of  this  government  has  repeated  it, 
all  political  parties  unite  in  the  sentiment ;  there  is  one  point  on 
which  the  American  people  are  united,  and  on  which  they  have 
stood  for  half  a  century.  It  is  violated  now.  The  question  is,  whe 
ther  we  shall  present  the  same  unanimity  in  resistance  that  we  do  in 
denying  the  right  to  commit  the  outrage.  Unanimity  on  our  part, 
unanimity  in  our  councils,  firm  resolve,  but  kind  and  respectful  words 
will  preserve  peace.  Sir,  I  desire  peace.  I  would  lament  a  war 
with  England,  or  with  any  other  power,  as  much  as  any  other  man 
in  the  Senate.  Nor  do  I  think  that  my  constituents  desire  war,  but, 
I  believe  that  the  true  way  to  prevent  it  is  to  be  prepared  to  resist 
aggression  the  moment  it  is  made.  What  is  the  argument  we  hear 
used  to-day?  The  senator  from  South  Carolina  (Mr.  Hammond), 
who  knows  that  I  have  for  him  the  highest  respect,  portrays  to  us 
our  weak,  feeble,  and  defenceless  condition ;  our  thousands  of  miles 
of  coast ;  our  small  navy ;  our  limited  resources  ;  to  show  that  we 
are  not  ready  for  a  war  now.  Sir,  let  Great  Britain  belie  vre  that 
picture,  and  she  will  be  ready  now  for  a  war  with  us. 


152  THE     LIFE     AND      SPEECHES      OF 

Our  vacillation,  our  hesitation,  our  nervousness  about  the  defence 
less  condition  of  our  coasts  and  of  our  cities,  are  the  sources  of  en 
couragement  to  England. 

Sir,  I  repel  the  idea  that  the  American  coast  is  so  defenceless  aa 
represented.  I  have  passed  round  a  great  portion  of  the  British 
coast,  and  I  undertake  to  assert  that  the  American  coast  is  in  a  bet 
ter  condition  of  defence  than  that  of  Great  Britain.  New  York  ia 
better  defended  than  Liverpool  or  London  to-day.  It  is  easier  for  a 
fleet  to  enter  the  harbor  of  Liverpool  or  London  than  New  York. 
There  are  not  as  many  obstacles  in  the  way  in  the  British  cities  as 
in  the  American.  It  is  possible  that  a  steam  fleet  might  run  by  the 
fortifications  into  either.  It  is  not  probable  it  would  ever  escape 
from  there  if  it  did  ;  but  it  is  possible  that  it  might  effect  its  escape. 
But,  sir,  I  do  not  believe  that  our  coast  is  more  exposed  than  hers,  and  I 
do  not  believe  our  commerce  is  more  exposed  than  hers.  I  do  not 
believe  England  is  any  better  prepared  for  war  with  us  than  we  are 
with  her.  If  s"he  has  a  larger  navy,  she  has  a  more  exposed  interest 
to  protect  by  that  navy.  She  has  her  troubles  in  India ;  she  has 
them  at  the  Cape ;  she  has  them  all  over  the  world ;  and  her  navy  is 
divided,  and  her  army  divided  to  protect  them  in  those  detached 
places  on  every  continent,  and  every  island  of  the  globe.  Sir,  the 
extent  of  her  power  spreading  all  around  the  globe  is  one  of  tlio 
greatest  sources  of  her  weakness ;  and  the  other  fact  that  she  is  a 
commercial  nation,  and  we  are  an  agricultural  people  shows  that 
she  may  be  ruined,  and  her  citizens  starved,  while  we,  although  at 
war  abroad,  are  happy  and  prosperous  at  home.  Her  statesmen  have 
more  respect  for  us  in  this  particular  than  we  have  for  ourselves. 
They  will  never  push  this  question  to  the  point  of  war.  They  will 
look  you  in  the  eye,  march  to  you  steadily,  as  long  as  they  find  it  is 
prudent.  If  you  cast  the  eye  down,  she  will  rush  upon  you.  If 
you  look  her  in  the  eye  steadily,  she  will  shake  hands  with  you  as 
friends,  and  have  respect  for  you. 

Suppose  she  should  not,  my  friend  from  South  Carolina  asks  me. 
If  she  does  not,  then  we  will  appeal  to  the  God  of  battles  ;  we  will 
arouse  the  patriotism  of  the  American  nation ;  we  will  blot  out  all 
distinction  of  party  ;  and  the  voice  of  faction  will  be  hushed ;  the 
American  people  will  be  a  unit ;  none  but  the  voice  of  patriotism 
will  be  heard ;  and  from  the  North  and  the  South,  from  the  East 
and  the  "West,  we  will  come  up  as  a  band  of  brothers,  animated  by  a 
common  spirit  and  a  common  patriotism,  as  were  our  fathers  of  the 
Revolution,  to  repel  the  foreign  enemy,  and  afterward  diifer  as  we 
please,  and  discuss  at  our  leisure,  matters  of  domestic  dispute. 

As  to  my  proposition  for  fifty  gun-boats  instead  of  twenty,  I  have 
only  to  say  that  I  prefer  the  larger  number ;  and  with  all  the  respect 
I  have  for  the  senator  from  Mississippi  and  his  superior  knowledge 
on  all  matters  of  military  defence,  I  must  be  permitted  to  entertain 
doubts  whether  he  is  correct  in  this  particular.  As  to  the  usefulness 
of  those  vessels  called  gun-boats,  the  experience  of  the  last  few 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  153 

years  shows  that  a  gun-boat  can  wander  from  the  Carolina  coast, 
and  can  venture  to  sea.  England  constructed  immense  numbers  of 
them  expressly  for  the  Black  Sea  and  the  Baltic  during  the  Russian 
war;  and  she  used  them  with  great  effect.  She  used  them  in  the 
Gulf  of  Finland  and  at  Sweaborg.  They  were  built  expressly  for  that 
service,  and  had  to  go  three  thousand  miles  to  get  to  the  Black  Sea, 
and  nearly  two  thousand  to  get  into  the  Gulf  of  Finland.  England 
has  sent  them  to  the  "West  Indies ;  and  the  very  outrages  of  which  we 
now  complain  are  being  perpetrated  by  gun-boats.  The  Forward, 
that  seized  our  vessels  five  hundred  miles  east  of  the  Island  of  Cuba, 
on  the  high  seas,  is  a  gun-boat.  The  Buzzard,  that  seized  our 
vessels  one  thousand  miles  from  Cuba,  off  in  the  Atlantic  ocean,  is  a 
gun-boat.  All  the  vessels  England  is  using  now,  for  the  annoyance 
of  our  commerce,  are  gun-boats — that  very  despised  little  crafl 
which  the  senator  from  Mississippi  thinks  will  never  venture  out 
from  shore.  I  think  that  if  a  gun-boat  is  powerful  enough  to  stop 
our  merchantmen  on  the  high  seas,  search  them,  and  take  them  into 
port,  or  do  what  she  pleases  with  them,  such  vessels  will  be  efficient 
enough  in  time  of  war  for  us  to  annoy  the  enemy's  commerce  with. 
I  think  daily  experience  proves  that  these  gun-boats  are  efficient  not 
only  in  the  defence  of  harbors,  in  running  into  the  mouths  of  rivers 
and  shallow  bays,  but  in  annoying  the  enemy's  commerce,  as  they 
are  being  used  by  England  for  that  very  purpose  at  this  time. 

It  so  happens  that  only  one  of  the  vessels  of  Great  Britain  that 
have  been  perpetrating  these  outrages  on  our  commerce,  which  lias 
hovered  around  the  coast  of  Cuba,  is  not  a  gun-boat,  but  small 
wheel  steamer — the  Styx. 


154:  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 


OX    THE    INVASION    OF    STATES, 

AND    EEPLT    TO    ME.    FESSENDEX. 

Delivered  in  tlie  Senate  of  the  United  States,  January  23,  1860. 

The  hour  having  arrived  for  the  consideration  of  the  special  order, 
the  Senate  proceeded  to  consider  the  following  resolution,  submitted 
by  Mr.  Douglas  on  the  16th  instant: 

"Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  be  instructed  to  report  a  bill 
for  the  protection  of  each  State  and  Territory  of' the  Union  against  invasion  by 
the  authorities  or  inhabitants  of  any  other  State  or  Territory  ;  and  for  the  sup 
pression  and  punishment  of  conspiracies  or  combinations  in  any  State  or 
Territory  with  intent  to  invade,  assail,  or  molest  the  government,  inhabitants, 
property,  or  institutions  of  any  other  State  or  Territory  of  the  Union." 

ME.  DOUGLAS. — Mr.  President,  on  the  25th  of  November  last,  the 
Governor  of  Virginia  addressed  an  official  communication  to  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  in  which  he  said : 

"  I  have  information  from  various  quarters,  upon  which  I  relv,  that  a  con 
spiracy  of  formidable  extent,  in  means  and  numbers,  is  formed  in  Ohio,  Penn 
sylvania,  NCAV  York,  and  other  States,  to  rescue  John  Brown  and  his  associates, 
prisoners  at  Chaiicstown,  Virginia.  The  information  is  specific  enough  to  be 
reliable 

"  Places  in  Maryland,  Ohio,  and  Pennsylvania,  have  been  occupied  as  depots 
and  rendezvous  by  these  desperadoes,  and  unobstructed  by  guards  or  other 
wise,  to  invade  this  State,  and  we  are  kept  in  continual  apprehension  of  out 
rage  from  fire  and  rapine.  I  apprise  you  of  these  facts  in  order  that  you  may 
take  steps  to  preserve  peace  between  the  States." 

To  this  communication,  the  President  of  the  United  States,  on  the 
28th  of  November,  returned  a  reply  from  which  I  read  the  following 
sentence : 

"  I  am  at  a  loss  to  discover  any  provision  in  the  Constitution  or  laws  of  the 
United  States  which  would  authorize  me  to  '  take  steps  '  for  this  purpose." 
[That  is,  to  preserve  the  peace  between  the  States.] 

This  announcement  produced  a  profound  impression  upon  the 
public  mind  and  especially  in  the  slaveholding  States.  It  was 
generally  received  and  regarded  as  an  authoritative  announcement 
that  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  confers  no  power  upon 
the  Federal  Government  to  protect  each  of  the  States  of  this  Union 
ftgainst  invasion  from  the  other  States.  I  shall  not  stop  to  inquire 
whether  the  President  meant  to  declare  that  the  existing  laws  confer 
no  authority  upon  him,  or  that  the  Constitution  empowers  Congress 


STEPHEN     A.    DOUGLAS.  155 

to  enact  laws  which  would  authorize  the  federal  interposition  to  pro 
tect  the  States  from  invasion ;  my  object  is  to  raise  the  inquiry,  and 
to  ask  the  judgment  of  the  Senate  and  of  the  House  of  Representa 
tives  on  the  question,  whether  it  is  not  within  the  power  of  Con 
gress,  and  the  duty  of  Congress,  under  the  Constitution,  to  enact  all 
laws  which  may  be  necessary  and  proper  for  the  protection  of  each 
and  every  State  against  invasion,  either  from  foreign  powers  or  from 
any  portion  of  the  United  States. 

The  denial  of  the  existence  of  such  a  power  in  the  Federal  Govern 
ment  has  induced  an  inquiry  among  conservative  men — men 
loyal  to  the  Constitution  and  devoted  to  the  Union — as  to  what 
means  they  have  of  protection,  if  the  Federal  Government  is  not 
authorized  to  protect  them  against  external  violence.  It  must  be 
conceded  that  no  community  is  safe,  no  State  can  enjoy  peace  or 
prosperity,  or  domestic  tranquillity,  without  security  against  external 
violence.  Every  State  and  nation  of  the  world,  outside  of  this 
Republic,  is  supposed  to  maintain  armies  and  navies  for  this  precise 
purpose.  It  is  the  only  legitimate  purpose  for  which  armies  and 
navies  are  maintained  in  time  of  peace.  They  may  be  kept  up  for 
ambitious  purposes,  for  the  purposes  of  aggression  and  foreign  war ; 
but  the  legitimate  purpose  of  a  military  force  in  time  of  peace  is  to 
insure  domestic  tranquillity  against  violence  or  aggression  from  with 
out.  The  States  of  this  Union  would  possess  that  power,  were  it 
not  for  the  restraints  imposed  upon  them  by  the  federal  Constitution. 
When  that  Constitution  was  made,  the  States  surrendered  to  the 
Federal  Government  the  power  to  raise  and  support  armies,  and  the 
power  to  provide  and  maintain  navies,  and  not  only  thus  surrendered 
the  means  of  protection  from  invasion,  but  consented  to  a  prohibition 
upon  themselves  which  declares  that  no  State  shall  keep  troops  or 
vessels  of  war  in  time  of  peace. 

The  question  now  recurs,  whether  the  States  of  this  Union  are  in 
that  helpless  condition,  with  their  hands  tied  by  the  Constitution, 
stripped  of  all  means  of  repelling  assaults  and  maintaining  their 
existence,  without  a  guaranty  from  the  Federal  Government,  to  pro 
tect  them  against  violence.  Jf  the  people  of  this  country  shall  settle 
down  into  the  conviction  that  there  is  no  power  in  the  Federal  Go 
vernment  under  the  Constitution  to  protect  each  and  every  State 
from  violence,  from  aggression,  from  invasion,  they  will  demand  that 
the  cord  be  severed,  and  that  the  weapons  be  restored  to  their  hands 
with  which  they  may  defend  themselves.  This  inquiry  involves  the 
question  of  the  perpetuity  of  the  Union.  The  means  of  defence,  the 
means  of  repelling  assaults,  the  means  of  providing  against  invasion, 
must  exist  as  a  condition  of  the  safety  of  the  States  and  the  existence 
of  the  Union. 

ISTow,  sir,  I  hope  to  be  able  to  demonstrate  that  there  is  no  wrong 
in  this  Union  for  which  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  has 
not  provided  a  remedy.  I  believe,  and  I  hope  I  shall  be  able  to 
maintain,  that  a  remedy  is  furnished  for  every  wrong  which  can  be 


156       THE  LIFE  AND  SPEECHES  OF 

perpetrated  within  the  Union,  if  the  Federal  Government  performs  ita 
whole  duty.  I  think  it  is  clear,  on  a  careful  examination  of  tho 
Constitution,  that  the  power  is  conferred  upon  Congress,  first,  to 
yrovide  for  repelling  invasion  from  foreign  countries  ;  and,  secondly, 
to  protect  each  State  of  this  Union  against  invasion  from  any  other 
State,  Territory,  or  place,  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States. 
I  will  first  turn  your  attention,  sir,  to  the  power  conferred  upon 
Congress  to  protect  the  United  States — including  States,  Territories, 
and  the  District  of  Columbia;  including  every  inch  of  ground  within 
our  limits  and  jurisdiction — against  foreign  invasion.  In  the  eighth 
section  of  the  first  article  of  the  Constitution,  you  find  that  Congress 
has  power — 

"  To  raise  and  support  armies ;  to  provide  and  maintain  a  navy;  to  make 
rules  for  the  government  and  regulation  of  the  land  and  naval  forces ;  to  pro 
vide  for  calling  forth  the  militia  to  execute  the  laws  of  the  Union,  suppress 
insurrections,  and  repel  invasions." 

These  various  clauses  confer  upon  Congress  power  to  use  the  whole 
military  fore  of  the  country  for  the  purpose  specified  in  the  Consti 
tution.  They  shall  provide  for  the  execution  of  the  laws  of  the 
Union ;  and,  secondly,  suppress  insurrections.  The  insurrections 
there  referred  to  are  insurrections  against  the  authority  of  the  United 
States — insurrections  against  a  State  authority  being  provided  for  in 
a  subsequent  section,  in  which  the  United  States  cannot  interfere, 
except  upon  the  application  of  the  State  authorities.  The  invasion 
which  is  to  be  repelled  by  this  clause  of  the  Constitution  is  an  inva 
sion  of  the  United  States.  The  language  is,  Congress  shall  have 
power  to  "  repel  invasions."  That  gives  the  authority  to  repel  the 
invasion,  no  matter  whether  the  enemy  shall  laud  within  the  limits 
of  Virginia,  within  the  District  of  Columbia,  within  the  Territory  of 
]STew  Mexico,  or  anywhere  else  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United 
States.  The  power  to  protect  every  portion  of  the  country  against 
invasion  from  foreign  nations  having  thus  been  specifically  conferred, 
the  fraraers  of  the  Constitution  then  proceeded  to  make  guaranties 
for  the  protection  of  each  of  the  States  by  federal  authority.  I  will 
read  the  fourth  section  of  the  fourth  article  of  the  Constitution  : 

"  The  United  States  shall  guarantee  to  every  State  in  this  Union  a  republican 
form  of  government,  and  shall  protect  each  of  them  against  invasion  ;  and,  on 
application  of  the  legislature,  or  of  the  Executive,  (when  the  legislature  can 
not  be  convened,)  against  domestic  violence." 

This  clause  contains  three  distinct  guaranties :  first,  the  United 
States  shall  guarantee  to  every  State  in  this  Union  a  republican  form 
of  government ;  second,  the  United  States  shall  protect  each  of  them 
against  invasion  ;  third,  the  United  States  shall,  on  application  of  tho 
legislature,  or  of  the  Executive,  when  the  legislature  cannot  be  con 
vened,  protect  them  against  domestic  violence.  Now,  sir,  I  submit 
to  you  whether  it  is  not  clear,  from  the  very  language  of  the  Consti- 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  157 

tution,  that  this  clause  was  inserted  for  the  purpose  of  making  it  the 
duty  of  the  Federal  Government  to  protect  each  of  the  States  against 
invasion  from  any  other  State,  Territory,  or  place  within  the  juris 
diction  of  the  United  States?  For  what  other  purpose  was  the 
clause  inserted  ?  The  power  and  duty  of  protection  as  against  foreign 
nations  had  already  been  provided  for.  This  clause  occurs  among 
the  guaranties  from  the  United  States  to  each  State,  for  the  benetit 
of  each  State,  for  the  protection  of  each  State,  and  necessarily  from 
other  States,  inasmuch  as  the  guaranty  had  been  given  previously  as 
against  foreign  nations. 

If  any  further  authority  is  necessary  to  show  that  such  is  the  truo 
construction  of  the  Constitution,  it  way  be  found  in  the  forty- third 
number  of  the  "  Federalist,"  written  by  James  Madison.  Mr.  Madi 
son  quotes  the  clause  of  the  Constitution  which  I  have  read,  giving 
these  three  guaranties  ;  and,  after  discussing  the  one  guaranteeing  to 
each  State  a  republican  form  of  government,  proceeds  to  consider 
the  second,  which  makes  it  the  duty  of  the  United  States  to  protect 
each  of  the  States  against  invasion.  Here  is  what  Mr.  Madison  says 
upon  that  subject : 

"  A  protection  against  invasion  is  due/rom  every  society  to  the  parts  compos 
ing  it.  The  latitude  of  the  expression  here  used  seems  to  secure  each  State, 
not  only  against  foreign  hostility,  but  against  ambitious  or  vindictive  enter 
prises  of  its  more  powerful  neighbors.  The  history  both  of  ancient  and  modern 
confederacies  proves  that  the  weaker  members  of  the  Union  ought  not  to  be 
insensible  to  the  policy  of  this  article." 

The  number  of  the  "  Federalist,"  like  all  the  others  of  that  cele 
brated  work,  was  written  after  the  Constitution  was  made,  and  before 
it  was  ratified  by  the  States,  and  with  a  view  to  securing  its  ratifica 
tion  ;  hence  the  people  of  the  several  States,  when  they  ratified  this 
instrument,  knew  that  this  clause  was  intended  to  bear  the  construc 
tion  which  I  now  place  upon  it.  It  was  intended  to  make  it  the 
duty  of  every  society  to  protect  each  of  its  parts ;  the  duty  of  the 
Federal  Government  to  protect  each  of  the  States  ;  and,  he  says,  the 
smaller  States  ought  not  to  be  insensible  to  the  policy  of  this  article 
of  the  Constitution. 

Then,  sir,  if  it  be  made  the  imperative  duty  of  the  Federal  Govern 
ment,  by  the  express  provision  of  the  Constitution,  to  protect  each 
of  the  States  against  invasion  or  violence  from  the  other  States,  or 
from  combinations  of  desperadoes  within  their  limits,  it  necessarily 
follows  that  it  is  the  duty  of  Congress  to  pass  all  laws  necessary  and 
proper  to  render  that  guaranty  effectual.  While  Congress,  in  the 
early  history  of  the  government,  did  provide  legislation,  which  is 
supposed  to  be  ample  to  protect  the  United  States  against  invasion 
from  foreign  countries  and  the  Indian  tribes,  they  have  failed,  up  to 
this  time,  to  make  any  law  for  the  protection  of  each  of  the  States 
against  invasion  from  within  the  limits  of  the  Union.  I  am  unable 
to  account  for  this  omission ;  but  I  presume  the  reason  is  to  be  found 


158        THE  LIFE  AND  SPEECHES  OF 

in  the  fact  that  no  Congress  ever  dreamed  that  such  legislation  would 
ever  become  necessary  for  the  protection  of  one  State  of  this  Union 
against  invasion  and  violence  from  her  sister  States.  "\Ylio,  until  the 
Harper's  Ferry  outrage,  ever  conceived  that  American  citizens  could 
be  so  forgetful  of  their  duties  to  themselves,  to  their  country,  to  the 
Constitution,  as  to  plan  an  invasion  of  another  State,  with  a  view  of 
inciting  servile  insurrection,  murder,  treason,  and  every  other  crime 
that  disgraces  humanity?  While,  therefore,  no  blame  can  justly  be 
attached  to  our  predecessors  in  failing  to  provide  the  legislation 
necessary  to  render  this  guaranty  of  the  Constitution  effectual;  still, 
since  the  experience  of  last  year,  we  cannot  stand  justified  in  omit 
ting  longer  to  perform  this  imperative  duty. 

The  question  then  remaining  is,  what  legislation  is  necessary  and 
proper  to  render  this  guaranty  of  the  Constitution  effectual?  I  pre 
sume  there  will  be  very  little  difference  of  opinion  that  it  will  bo 
necessary  to  place  the  whole  military  power  of  the  government  at  the 
disposal  of  the  President,  under  proper  guards  and  restrictions  against 
abuse,  to  repel  and  suppress  invasion  when  the  hostile  force  shall  be 
actually  in  the  field.  But,  sir,  that  is  not  sufficient.  Such  legislation 
would  not  be  a  full  compliance  with  this  guaranty  of  the  Constitu 
tion.  The  framers  of  that  instrument  meant  more  when  they  gave 
the  guaranty.  Mark  the  difference  in  language  between  the  provi 
sion  for  protecting  the  United  States  against  invasion  and  that  for 
protecting  the  States.  When  it  provided  for  protecting  the  United 
States,  it  said  Congress  shall  have  power  to  "  repel  invasion."  When 
it  came  to  make  this  guaranty  to  the  States  it  changed  the  language 
and  said  the  United  States  shall  "protect  "  each  of  the  States  against 
invasion.  In  one  instance,  the  duty  of  the  government  is  to  repel; 
in  the  other,  the  guaranty  is  that  they  wrill  protect.  In  other  words, 
the  United  States  are  not  permitted  to  wait  until  the  enemy  shall  be 
upon  your  borders;  until  the  invading  army  shall  have  been  organ 
ized  and  drilled  and  placed  in  march  with  a  view  to  the  invasion ; 
but  they  must  pass  all  laws  necessary  and  proper  to  insure  protection 
and  domestic  tranquillity  to  each  State  and  Territory  of  this  Union 
against  invasion  or  hostilities  from  other  States  and  Territories. 

Then,  sir,  I  hold  that  it  is  not  only  necessary  to  use  the  military 
power  when  the  actual  case  of  invasion  shall  occur,  but  to  authorize 
the  judicial  department  of  the  government  to  suppress  all  conspiracies 
and  combinations  in  the  several  States  with  the  intent  to  invade  a 
State,  or  molest  or  disturb  its  government,  its  peace,  its  citizens,  its 
property,  or  its  institutions.  You  must  punish  the  conspiracy,  the 
combination  with  intent  to  do  the  act,  and  then  you  will  suppress  it 
in  advance.  There  is  no  principle  more  familiar  to  the  legal  profes 
sion  than  that  wherever  it  is  proper  to  declare  an  act  to  be  a  crime,  it 
is  proper  to  punish  a  conspiracy  or  combination  with  intent  to  perpe 
trate  the  act.  Look  upon  your  statute  books,  and  I  presume  you  will 
find  an  enactment  to  punish  the  counterfeiting  of  the  coin  of  the 
United  States  ;  and  then  another  section  to  punish  a  man  for  having 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  159 

oountefeit  coin  in  his  possession  with  intent  to  pass  it;  and  another 
section  to  punish  him  for  having  the  molds,  or  dies,  or  instruments 
for  counterfeiting,  with  intent  to  use  them.  This  is  a  familiar  princi 
ple  in  legislative  and  judicial  proceedings.  If  the  act  of  invasion  is 
criminal,  the  conspiracy  to  invade  should  also  be  made  criminal.  If 
it  be  unlawful  and  illegal  to  invade  a  State,  and  run  oft*  fugitive 
slaves,  why  not  make  it  unlawful  to  form  conspiracies  and  combi na 
tions  in  the  several  States  with  intent  to  do  the  act?  We  have  been 
told  that  a  notorious  man  who  has  recently  suffered  death  for  his 
crimes  upon  the  gallows,  boasted  in  Cleaveland,  Ohio,  in  a  public 
lecture,  a  year  ago,  that  he  had  then  a  body  of  men  employed  in 
running  away  horses  from  the  slaveholders  of  Missouri,  and  pointed 
to  a  livery  stable  in  Cleaveland  which  was  full  of  the  stolen  horses 
at  that  time. 

I  think  it  is  within  our  competency,  and  consequently  our  duty, 
to  pass  a  law  making  every  conspiracy  or  combination  in  any  State 
or  Territory  of  this  Union  to  invade  another  with  intent  to  steal  or 
run  away  property  of  any  kind,  whether  it  be  negroes,  or  horses,  or 
property  of  any  other  description,  into  another  State,  a  crime,  and 
punish  the  conspirators  by  indictment  in  the  United  States  courts, 
and  confinement  in  the  prisons  or  penitentiaries  of  the  State  or  Ter 
ritory  where  the  conspiracy  may  be  formed  and  quelled.  Sir,  I 
would  carry  these  provisions  of  law  as  far  as  our  constitutional 
power  will  reach.  I  would  make  it  a  crime  to  form  conspiracies 
with  a  view  of  invading  States  or  Territories  to  control  elections, 
whether  they  be  under  the  garb  of  Emigrant  Aid  Societies  of  New 
England,  or  Blue  Lodges  of  Missouri.  (Applause  in  the  galleries.) 
In  other  words,  this  provision  of  the  Constitution  means  more  than 
the  mere  repelling  of  an  invasion  when  the  invading  army  shall 
reach  the  border  of  a  State.  The  language  is,  it  shall  protect  the 
State  against  invasion ;  the  meaning  of  which  is,  to  use  the  lan 
guage  of  the  preamble  to  the  Constitution,  to  insure  to  each  State 
domestic  tranquillity  against  external  violence.  There  can  be  no 
peace,  there  can  be  no  prosperity,  there  can  be  no  safety  in  any 
community,  unless  it  is  secured  against  violence  from  abroad.  AVhy, 
sir,  it  has  been  a  question  seriously  mooted  in  Europe,  whether  it 
was  not  the  duty  of  England,  a  power  foreign  to  France,  to  pass  laws 
to  punish  conspiracies  in  England  against  the  lives  of  the  princes  of 
France.  I  shall  not  argue  the  question  of  comity  between  foreign 
States.  I  predicate  my  argument  upon  the  Constitution  by  which 
we  are  governed,  and  which  we  have  sworn  to  obey,  and  demand 
that  the  Constitution  be  executed  in  good  faith  so  as  to  punish  ai;d 
suppress  every  combination,  every  conspiracy,  either  to  invade  a 
State  or  to  molest  its  inhabitants,  or  to  disturb  its  property,  or  to 
subvert  its  institutions  and  its  government.  I  believe  this  cart  be 
effectually  done  by  authorizing  the  United  States  courts  in  the 
several  States  to  take  jurisdiction  of  the  offence,  and  punish  the 
violation  of  the  law  with  appropriate  punishments. 


160       THE   LIFE  AND   SPEECHES   OF 

It  cannot  be  said  that  the  time  has  not  yet  arrived  for  such  legis 
lation.  It  cannot  be  said  with  truth  that  the  Harper's  Ferry  case 
will  not  be  repeated,  or  is  not  in  danger  of  repetition.  It  is  only 
necessary  to  inquire  into  the  causes  which  produced  the  Harper's 
Ferry  outrage,  and  ascertain  whether  those  causes  are  yet  in  active 
operation,  and  then  you  can  determine  whether  there  is  any  ground 
for  apprehension  that  that  invasion  will  be  repeated.  Sir,  what 
were  the  causes  which  produced  the  Harper's  Ferry  outrage? 
Without  stopping  to  adduce  evidence  in  detail,  I  have  no  hesitation 
in  expressing  my  firm  and  deliberate  conviction  that  the  Harper's 
Ferry  crime  was  the  natural,  logical,  inevitable  result  of  the  doc 
trines  and  teachings  of  the  Republican  party,  as  explained  and 
enforced  in  their  platform,  their  partisan  presses,  their  pamphlets 
and  books,  and  especially  in  the  speeches  of  their  leaders  in  and  out 
of  Congress.  (Applause  in  the  galleries.) 

I  was  remarking  that  I  considered  this  outrage  at  Harper's  Ferry 
as  the  logical,  natural  consequence  of  the  teachings  and  doctrines  of 
the  Republican  party.  I  am  not  making  this  statement  for  the 
purpose  of  crimination  or  partisan  effect.  I  desire  to  call  the  atten 
tion  of  members  of  that  party  to  a  reconsideration  of  the  doctrines 
that  they  are  in  the  habit  of  enforcing,  with  a  view  to  a  fair  judg 
ment  whether  they  do  not  lead  directly  to  those  consequences,  on 
the  part  of  those  deluded  persons  who  think  that  all  they  say  is 
meant,  in  real  earnest,  and  ought  to  be  carried  out.  The  great 
principle  that  underlies  the  Republican  party  is  violent,  irreconcila 
ble,  eternal  warfare  upon  the  institution  of  American  slavery,  with 
the  view  of  its  ultimate  extinction  throughout  the  land ;  sectional 
war  is  to  be  waged  until  the  cotton  field  of  the  South  shall  be  culti 
vated  by  free  labor,  or  the  rye  fields  of  New  York,  and  Massachu 
setts  shall  be  cultivated  by  slave  labor.  In  furtherance  of  this 
article  of  their  creed,  you  find  their  political  organization  not  only 
sectional  in  its  location,  but  one  whose  vitality  consists  in  appeals  to 
northern  passion,  northern  prejudice,  northern  ambition  against 
southern  States,  southern  institutions,  and  southern  people.  I  have 
had  some  experience  in  fighting  this  element  within  the  last  few 
years,  and  I  find  that  the  source  of  their  power  consists  in  exciting 
the  prejudices  and  the  passions  of  the  northern  section  against  those 
of  the  southern  section.  They  not  only  attempt  to  excite  the  North 
against  the  South,  but  they  invite  the  South  to  assail  and  abuse  and 
traduce  the  North.  Southern  abuse,  by  violent  men,  of  northern 
statesmen  and  northern  people,  is  essential  to  the  triumph  of  the 
Republican  cause.  Hence  the  course  of  argument  which  we  have  to 
meet  is  not  only  repelling  the  appeals  to  northern  passion  and  preju 
dice,  but  we  have  to  encounter  their  appeals  to  southern  men  to 
assail  us,  in  order  that  they  may  justify  their  assaults  upon  the  plea 
of  self-defence. 

Sir,  when  I  returned  home  in  1858,  f  >r  the  purpose  of  canvassing 
Illinois,  with  a  view  to  reelection,  I  had  to  moet  this  issue  of  the 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  1GJ 

44  irrepressible  conflict."  It  is  true  that  the  senator  from  Xew  York 
had  not  then  made  his  Rochester  speech,  and  did  not  for  four  months 
afterward.  It  is  true  that  he  had  not  given  the  doctrine  that  precise 
name  and  form ;  but  the  principle  was  in  existence,  and  had  been 
proclaimed  by  the  ablest  and  the  most  clear-headed  men  of  the 
party.  I  will  call  your  attention,  sir,  to  a  single  passage  from  a 
speech,  to  show  the  language  in  which  this  doctrine  was  stated  in 
Illinois  before  it  received  the  name  of  the  "  irrepressible  conflict." 
The  Republican  party  assembled  in  State  convention  in  June,  1858, 
in  Illinois,  and  unanimously  adopted  Abraham  Lincoln  as  their 
candidate  for  United  States  "senator.  Mr.  Lincoln  appeared  before 

the  convention,   accepted  the  nomination,   and  made  a  speech 

which  had  been  previously  written  and  agreed  to  in  caucus  by  most 
of  the  leaders  of  the  party.  I  will  read  a  single  extract  from  that 
speech : 

"  In  my  opinion,  it  [the  slavery  agitation]  will  not  cease  until  a  crisis  shall 
have  been  re-ached  and  passed.  '  A  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand.' 
I  believe  this  government  cannot  endure  permanently,  half  slave  and  half  free. 
I  do  not  expect  the  house  to  fall,  but  I  do  expect  it  will  cease  to  be  divided. 
It  will  become  all  one  thing  or  all  the  other.  Either  the  opponents  of  slavery 
will  arrest  the  further  spread  of  it.  and  place  it  where  the  public  mind  shall 
rest  in  the  belief  that  it  is  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction  :  or  its  advocates 
will  push  forward  till  it  shall  become  alike  lawful  in  all  the  States— old  a=  well 
as  new,  North  as  well  as  South." 


Sir,  the  moment  I  landed  upon  the  soil  of  Illinois,  at  a  vast  gather- 


the  perpetuity  of  this  Republic.  That  is  not  merely  the  individual 
opinion  of  Mr.  Lincoln;  nor  is  it  the  individual  opinion  merely  of  the 
senator  from  Xew  York,  who  four  months  afterward  asserted  the 
same  doctrine  in  different  language  ;  but,  so  far  as  I  know,  it  is  the 
general  opinion  of  the  members  of  the  Abolition  or  Republican  party. 
They  tell  the  people  of  the  Xorth  that  unless  they  rally  as  one  man, 
under  a  sectional  banner,  and  make  war  upon  the'South  with  a  view 
to  the  ultimate  extinction  of  slavery,  slavery  will  overrun  the  whole  ' 
North,  and  fasten  itself  upon  all  the  free  States.  They  then  tell  the 
South,  unless  you  rally  as  one  man,  binding  the  whole  southern  peo- 

Ele  into  a  sectional  party,  and  establish  slavery  all  over  the  free 
tales,  the  inevitable  consequence  will  be  that  we  shall  abolish  it  in 
the  slayeholding  States.  The  same  doctrine  is  held  by  the  senator 
from  Xew  York  in  his  Rochester  speech.  He  tells  us  that  the 
States  must  all  become  free,  or  all  become  slave;  that  the  South, 
in  other  words,  must  conquer  and  subdue  the  North,  or  the  North 
must  triumph  over  the  South,  and  drive  slavery  from  within  its 
limits. 

Mr.  President,  in  order  to  show  that  I  have  not  misinterpreted  the 
position  of  the  senator  from  Xew  York,  in  notifying  the  South  that, 


162  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

if  they  wish  to  maintain  slavery  within  their  limits,  they  must  also 
fasten  it  upon  the  northern  States,  I  will  read  an  extract  from  his 
Rochester  speech : 

"  It  is  an  irrepressible  conflict  between  opposing  and  enduring  forces :  and 
it  means  that  the  United  States  must  and  will,  sooner  or  later,  become  either 
entirely  a  slaveholding  nation,  or  entirely  a  free-labor  nation.  Either  the  cot 
ton  and  rice  fields  of  South  Carolina,  and  the  sugar  plantations  of  Louisiana, 
will  ultimately  be  tilled  by  free  labor,  and  Charleston  and  New  Orleans  become 
marts  for  legitimate  merchandise  alone,  or  else  the  rye  fields  and  wheat 
fields  of  Massachusetts  and  New  York  must  again  be  surrendered  by  their 
farmers  to  slave  culture  and  to  the  production  of  slaves,  and  Boston  and 
New  York  become  once  more  markets  for  trade  in  the  bodies  and  souls 
of  men." 

Tims,  sir,  you  perceive  that  the  theory  of  the  Republican  party  is, 
that  there  is  a  conflict  between  two  different  systems  of  institutions 
in  the  respective  classes  of  States — not  a  conflict  in  the  same  States, 
but  an  irrepressible  conflict  between  the  free  States  and  the  slave 
States  ;  and  they  argue  that  these  two  systems  of  State  cannot  per 
manently  exist  in  the  same  Union ;  that  the  sectional  warfare  must 
continue  to  rage  and  increase  with  increasing  fury  until  the  free 
States  shall  surrender,  or  the  slave  States  shall  be  subdued.  Hence, 
while  they  appeal  to  the  passions  of  our  own  section,  their  object  is 
to  alarm  the  people  of  the  other  section,  and  drive  them  to  madness, 
with  the  hope  that  they  will  invade  our  rights  as  an  excuse  for  some 
of  our  people  to  carry  on  aggressions  upon  their  rights.  I  appeal  to 
the  candor  of  senators,  whether  this  is  not  a  fair  exposition  of  the 
tendency  of  the  doctrines  proclaimed  by  the  Republican  party. 
The  creed  of  that  party  is  founded  upon  the  theory  that,  because 
slavery  is  not  desirable  in  our  States,  it  is  not  desirable  anywhere; 
because  free  labor  is  a  good  thing  with  us,  it  must  be  the  best  thing 
everywhere.  In  other  words,  the  creed  of  their  party  rests  upon  the 
theory  that  there  must  be  uniformity  in  the  domestic  institutions 
and  internal  polity  of  the  several  States  of  this  Union.  There,  in  my 
opinion,  is  the  fundamental  error  upon  which  their  whole  system 
rests.  In  the  Illinois  canvass,  I  asserted,  and  now  repeat,  that  uni 
formity  in  the  domestic  institutions  of  the  different  States  is  neither 
possible  nor  desirable.  That  is  the  very  issue  upon  which  I  con 
ducted  the  canvass  at  home,  and  it  is  the  question  which  I  desire 
to  present  to  the  Senate.  I  repeat,  that  uniformity  in  domestic 
institutions  of  the  different  States,  is  neither  possible  nor  desirable. 

Was  such  the  doctrine  of  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  ?  I  wish 
the  country  to  bear  in  mind  that  when  the  Constitution  was  adopted, 
the  Union  consisted  of  thirteen  States,  twelve  of  which  were  slave- 
holding  States,  and  one  a  free  State.  Suppose  this  doctrine  of  uni 
formity  on  the  slavery  question  hat/  prevailed  in  the  Federal  Con 
vention,  do  the  gentlemen  on  that  side  of  the  House  think  that  free 
dom  would  have  triumphed  over  slavery?  Do  they  imagine  that  the 
one  free  State  would  have  outvoted  the  twelve  slaveholding  States. 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  163 

and  thus  have  abolished  slavery  throughout  the  land  by  a  Consti 
tutional  provision?  On  the  contrary,  if  the  test  had  then  been 
made,  if  this  doctrine  of  uniformity  on  the  slavery  question  had  then 
been  proclaimed  and  believed  in,  with  the  twelve  slaveholding  States 
against  one  free  State,  would  it  not  have  resulted  in  a  constitutional 
provision  fastening  slavery  irrevocably  upon  every  inch  of  American 
soil,  North  as  well  as  South  ?  Was  it  quite  fair  in  those  days  for  the 
friends  of  free  institutions  to  claim  that  the  Federal  Government 
must  not  touch  the  question,  but  must  leave  the  people  of  each  State 
to  do  as  they  pleased,  until  under  the  operation  of  that  principle  they 
secured  the  majority,  and  then  wield  that  majority  to  abolish  slavery 
in  the  other  States  of  the  Union  ? 

Sir,  if  uniformity  in  respect  to  domestic  institutions  had  been 
deemed  desirable  when  the  Constitution  was  adopted,  there  was 
another  mode  by  which  it  could  have  been  obtained.  The  natural 
mode  of  obtaining  uniformity  was  to  have  blotted  out  the  State 
governments,  to  have  abolished  the  State  Legislatures,  to  have  con 
ferred  upon  Congress  legislative  power  over  the  municipal  and 
domestic  concerns  of  the  people  of  all  the  States,  as  well  as  upon 
Federal  questions  affecting  the  whole  Union  ;  and  if  this  doctrine  of 
uniformity  had  been  entertained  and  favored  by  the  framers  of  the 
Constitution,  such  would  have  been  the  result.  But,  sir,  the  framers 
of  that  instrument  knew  at  that  day,  as  well  as  we  now  know,  that 
in  a  country  as  broad  as  this,  with  so  great  a  variety  of  climate,  of 
soil,  and  of  production,  there  must  necessarily  be  a  corresponding 
diversity  of  institutions  and  domestic  regulations,  adapted  to  the 
wants  and  necessities  of  each  locality.  The  framers  of  the  Constitu 
tion  knew  that  the  laws  and  institutions  which  were  well  adapted  to 
the  mountains  and  valleys  of  New  England,  were  ill-suited  to 
the  rice  plantations  and  the  cotton-fields  of  the  Carolinas.  They 
knew  that  our  liberties  depended  upon  reserving  the  right  to  the 
people  of  each  State  to  make  their  own  laws  and  establish  their  own 
institutions,  and  control  them  at  pleasure,  without  interference  from 
the  Federal  Government,  or  from  any  other  State  or  Territory,  or 
any  foreign  country.  The  Constitution,  therefore,  was  based,  and 
the  Union  was  founded,  on  the  principle  of  dissimilarity  in  the 
domestic  institutions  and  internal  polity  of  the  several  States.  The 
Union  was  founded  on  the  theory  that  each  State  had  peculiar 
interests,  requiring  peculiar  legislation,  and  peculiar  institutions,  dif 
ferent  and  distinct  Irom  every  other  State.  The  Union  rests  on  the 
theory  that  no  two  States  would  be  precisely  alike  in  their  domestic 
policy  and  institutions. 

Hence,  I  assert  that  this  doctrine  of  uniformity  in  the  domestic 
institutions  of  the  different  States  is  repugnant  to  the  Constitution, 
subversive  of  the  principles  upon  which  the  Union  was  based,  revo 
lutionary  in  its  character,  and  leading  directly  to  despotism  if  it  is 
ever  established.  Uniformity  in  local  and  domestic  affairs  in  a  coun 
try  of  great  extent  is  despotism,  always.  Show  me  centralism  pre- 


164:  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

pcribing  uniformity  from  the  capital  to  all  of  its  provinces  in  their 
local  and  domestic  concerns,  and  I  will  show  yon  a  despotism  aa 
odious  and  as  insufferable  as  that  of  Austria  or  of  Naples.  Dissimi 
larity  is  the  principle  upon  which  the  Union  rests.  It  is  founded 
upon  the  idea  that  each  State  must  necessarily  require  different 
regulations ;  that  no  two  States  have  precisely  the  same  interests, 
and  hence  do  not  need  precisely  the  same  laws ;  and  you  cannot 
account  for  this  confederation  of  States  upon  any  other  principle. 

Then,  sir,  what  becomes  of  this  doctrine  that  slavery  must  be  es 
tablished  in  all  the  States  or  prohibited  in  all  the  States  ?  If  we 
only  conform  to  the  principles  upon  which  the  Federal  IMon  was 
lormed,  there  can  be  no  conflict.  It  is  only  necessary  to  recognize 
the  right  of  the  people  of  every  State  to  have  just  such  institutions 
as  they  please,  without  consulting  your  wishes,  your  views,  or  your 
prejudices,  and  there  can  be  no  conflict. 

And,  sir,  inasmuch  as  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  con 
fers  upon  Congress  the  power  coupled  with  the  duty  of  protecting 
each  State  against  external  aggression,  and  inasmuch  as  that  includes 
the  power  of  suppressing  and  punishing  conspiracies  in  one  State 
against  the  institutions,  property,  people,  or  government  of  every 
other  State,  I  desire  to  carry  out  that  power  vigorously.  Sir,  give 
us  such  a  law  as  the  Constitution  contemplates  and  authorizes,  and  I 
will  show  the  senator  from  New  York  that  there  is  a  constitutional 
mode  of  repressing  the  u  irrepressible  conflict."  I  will  open  the 
prison  door  to  allow  conspirators  against  the  peace  of  the  Republic 
and  the  domestic  tranquility  of  our  States  to  select  their  cells  wherein 
to  drag  out  a  miserable  life,  as  a  punishment  for  their  crimes  against 
the  peace  of  society. 

Can  any  man  say  to  us  that  although  this  outrage  has  been  perpe 
trated  at  Harper's  Ferry,  there  is  no  danger  of  its  recurrence  ?  Sir, 
is  not  the  Republican  party  still  embodied,  organized,  confident  of 
success,  and  defiant  in  its  pretensions  ?  Does  it  not  now  hold  and 
proclaim  the  same  creed  that  it  did  before  this  invasion?  It  is  true 
that  most  of  its  representatives  here  disavow  the  acts  of  John  Brown 
at  Harper's  Ferry.  I  am  glad  that  they  do  so  ;  I  am  rejoiced  that 
they  have  gone  thus  far ;  but  I  must  be  permitted  to  say  to  them  that 
it  is  not  sufficient  that  they  disavow  the  act,  unless  they  also  repudi 
ate  and  denounce  the  doctrines  and  teachings  which  produced  the 
act.  Those  doctrines  remain  the  same ;  those  teachings  are  being 
poured  into  the  minds  of  men  throughout  the  country  by  means  of 
speeches  and  pamphlets  and  books  and  through  partisan  presses. 
The  causes  that  produced  the  Harper's  Ferry  invasion  are  now  in 
active  operation.  It  is  true  that  the  people  of  all  the  border  States 
are  required  by  the  Constitution  to  have  their  hands  tied,  without 
the  power  of  self-defence,  and  remain  patient  under  a  threatened  in 
vasion  in  the  day  or  in  the  night  ?  Can  you  expect  people  to  be 
patient,  when  they  dare  not  lie  down  to  sleep  at  night  without  first 
stationing  sentinels  around  their  houses  to  see  if  a  buL.d  of  marauders 


STEPHEN     A.    DOUGLAS.  165 

and  murderers  are  not  approaching  with  torch  and  pistol  ?  Sir,  it 
requires  more  patience  than  freemen  ever  should  cultivate,  to  submit 
to  constant  annoyance,  irritation  and  apprehension.  If  we  expect  to 
preserve  this  Union,  we  must  remedy,  within  the  Union  and  in  obe 
dience  to  the  Constitution,  every  evil  for  which  disunion  would  fur 
nish  a  remedy.  If  the  Federal  Government  fails  to  act,  either  from 
choice  or  from  an  ppprehension  of  the  want  of  power,  it  cannot  bo 
expected  that  the  States  will  be  content  to  remain  unprotected. 

Then,  sir,  I  see  no  hope  of  peace,  of  fraternity,  of  good  feeling,  be 
tween  the  different  portions  of  the  United  States,  except  by  bringing 
to  bear  the  power  of  the  Federal  Government  to  the  extent  author 
ized  by  the  Constitution — to  protect  the  people  of  all  the  States 
against  any  external  violence  or  aggression.  I  repeat,  that  if  the 
theory  of  the  Constitution  shall  be  carried  out  by  conceding  the  right 
of  the  people  of  every  State  to  have  just  such  institutions  as  they 
choose,  there  cannot  be  a  conflict,  much  less  an  "irrepressible  con 
flict,"  between  the  free  and  the  slaveholding  States. 

Mr.  President,  the  mode  of  preserving  peace  is  plain.  This  system 
of  sectional  warfare  must  cease.  The  Constitution  has  given  the 
power,  and  all  we  ask  of  Congress  is  to  give  the  means,  and  we,  by 
indictments  and  convictions  in  the  federal  courts  of  our  several 
States,  will  make  such  examples  of  the  leaders  of  these  conspiracies 
as  will  strike  terror  into  the  hearts  of  the  others,  and  there  will  be 
an  end  of  this  crusade.  Sir,  you  must  check  it  by  crushing  out  the 
conspiracy,  the  combination,  and  then  there  can  be  safety.  Then  we 
shall  be  able  to  restore  that  spirit  of  fraternity  which  inspired  our 
revolutionary  fathers  upon  every  battle-field ;  which  presided  over 
the  deliberations  of  the  convention  that  framed  the  Constitution,  and 
filled  the  hearts  of  the  people  who  ratified  it.  Then  we  shall  be  ablo 
to  demonstrate  to  you  that  there  is  no  evil  unredressed  in  the  Union 
for  which  disunion  would  furnish  a  remedy.  Then,  sir,  let  us  exe 
cute  the  Constitution  in  the  spirit  in  which  it  was  made.  Let  Con 
gress  pass  all  the  laws  necessary  and  proper  to  give  full  and  complete 
effect  to  every  guaranty  of  the  Constitution.  Let  them  authorize 
the  punishment  of  conspiracies  and  combinations  in  any  State  or 
Territory  against  the  property,  institutions,  people  or  government 
of  any  other  State  or  Territory,  and  there  will  be  no  excuse,  no  de 
sire,  for  disunion.  Then,  sir,  let  us  leave  the  people  of  every  State 
perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in  their 
own  way.  Let  each  of  them  retain  slavery  just  as  long  as  it  pleases, 
and  abolish  it  when  it  chooses.  Let  us  act  upon  that  good  old 
golden  principle  which  teaches  all  men  to  mind  their  own  business 
nnd  let  their  neighbors  alone.  Let  this  be  done,  and  this  Union  can 
endure  forever  as  our  fathers  made  it,  composed  of  free  and  slave 
States,  just  as  the  people  of  each,  State  may  determine  for  them 
selves. 

Mr.  Fessenden  having  replied  at  some  length  to  Mr.  Doug 
las,  he  made  the  following  rejoinder : 


106  THE     LIFE     AND      SPEECHES     OF 

MB.  DOUGLAS. — Mr.  President,  I  shall  not  follow  the  senator  from 
Maine  through  his  entire  speech,  but  simply  notice  such  points  as 
demand  of  me  some  reply.  He  does  not  know  why  I  introduced  my 
resolution  ;  he  cannot  conceive  any  good  motive  for  it ;  he  thinks 
there  must  be  some  other  motive  besides  the  one  that  has  been 
avowed.  There  are  some  men,  I  know,  who  cannot  conceive  that  a 
man  can  be  governed  by  a  patriotic  or  proper  motive  ;  but  it  is  not 
among  that  class  of  men  that  I  look  for  those  who  are  governed  by 
motives  of  propriety.  I  have  no  impeachment  to  make  of  his  mo 
tives.  I  brought  in  this  resolution  because  I  thought  the  time  had 
arrived  when  we  should  have  a  measure  of  practical  legislation.  I 
had  seen  expressions  of  opinion  against  the  power  from  authorities 
so  high  that  I  felt  it  my  duty  to  bring  it  to  the  attention  of  the  Sen 
ate.  I  had  heard  that  the  senator  from  Virginia  had  intimated  some 
doubt  on  the  question  of  power,  as  well  as  of  policy.  Other  senators 
discussed  the  question  here  for  weeks  when  I  was  confined  to  my 
sick  bed.  "Was  there  anything  unreasonable  in  my  coming  before 
the  Senate  at  this  time,  expressing  my  own  opinion,  and  confining 
myself  to  the  practical  legislation  indicated  in  the  resolution  ?  Nor, 
sir,  have  I  in  my  remarks  gone  outside  of  the  legitimate  argument 
pertaining  to  the  necessity  for  this  legislation.  I  first  showed  that 
there  had  been  a  great  outrage  ;  I  showed  what  I  believed  to  be  the 
causes  that  had  produced  the  outrage,  and  that  the  causes  which  pro 
duced  it  were  still  in  operation ;  and  argued  that,  so  long  as  tho 
party  to  which  the  gentlemen  belong  remains  embodied  in  full  force, 
those  causes  will  still  threaten  the  country.  That  was  all. 

The  senator  from  Maine  thinks  he  will  vote  for  the  bill  that  will 
be  proposed  to  carry  out  the  objects  referred  to  in  my  resolution. 
Sir,  whenever  that  senator  and  his  associates  on  the  other  side  of 
the  chamber  will  record  their  votes  for  a  bill  of  the  character 
described  in  my  resolution  and  speech,  I  shall  congratulate  the  coun 
try  upon  the  progress  they  are  making  toward  sound  principles. 
Whenever  he  and  his  associates  will  make  it  a  felony  for  two  or 
more  men  to  conspire  to  run  oif  fugitive  slaves,  and  punish  the 
conspirators  by  confinement  in  the  penitentiary,  I  shall  consider 
that  wonderful  changes  have  taken  place  in  this  country.  I  tell  the 
senator  that  it  is  the  general  tone  of  sentiment  in  all  those  sections 
of  the  country  where  the  Republican  party  predominate,  so  far  as  I 
know,  not  only  not  to  deem  it  a  crime  to  rescue  a  fugitive  slave,  but 
to  raise  mobs  to  aid  in  the  rescue.  He  talks  about  slandering  the 
Republican  party  when  we  intimate  that  they  are  making  a  warfare 
upon  the  rights  guaranteed  by  the  Constitution.  Sir,  where,  in  the 
towns  and  cities  with  Republican  majorities,  can  you  execute  the 
Fugitive  Slave  Law  ?  Is  it  in  the  town  where  the  senator  from  New- 
York  resides  ?  Do  you  not  remember  the  Jerry  rescuers  ?  Is  it  at 
Oberliu,  where  the  mob  was  raised  that  made  the  rescue  last  year 
and  produced  the  riot  ? 

Why  not  make  it  a  crime  to  form  conspiracies  and  combinations 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  167 

to  run  off  fugitive  slaves,  as  well  as  to  run  off  horses,  or  any  other 
property  ?  I  am  talking  about  conspiracies  which  are  so  common  in 
all  our  northern  States,  to  invade  and  enter,  through  their  agents, 
the  slave  States,  and  seduce  away  slaves  and  run  them  off  by  the 
underground  railroad,  in  order  to  send  them  to  Canada.  It  is  these 
conspiracies  to  perpetrate  crime  with  impunity,  that  keep  up  the  irri 
tation.  John  Brown  could  boast,  in  a  public  lecture  in  Cleveland, 
that  he  and  his  band  had  been  engaged  all  the  winter  in  stealing 
horses  and  running  them  off  from  the  slaveholders  in  Missouri,  and 
that  the  livery  stables  were  then  filled  with  stolen  horses,  and  yet 
the  conspiracy  to  do  it  could  not  be  punished. 

Sir,  I  desire  a  law  that  will  make  it  a  crime,  punishable  by  impri 
sonment  in  the  penitentiary,  after  conviction  in  the  United  States 
court,  to  make  a  conspiracy  in  one  State,  against  the  people,  pro 
perty,  government,  or  institutions,  of  another.  Then  we  shall  get 
at  the  root  of  the  eviL  I  have  no  doubt  that  gentlemen  on  the  other 
side  will  vote  for  a  law  which  pretends  to  comply  with  the  guaranties 
of  the  Constitution,  without  carrying  any  force  or  efficiency  in  its 
provisions.  I  have  heard  men  abuse  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law,  and 
express  their  willingness  to  vote  for  amendments;  but  when  you 
fame  to  the  amendments  which  they  desired  to  adopt,  you  found 
they  were  such  as  would  never  return  a  fugitive  to  his  master. 
They  would  go  for  any  fugitive  slave  law  that  had  a  hole  in  it  big 
enough  to  let  the  negro  drop  through  and  escape ;  but  none  that 
would  comply  with  the  obligations  of  the  Constitution.  So  we  shall 
lind  that  side  of  the  chamber  voting  for  a  law  that  will,  in  terms, 
disapprove  of  unlawful  expeditions  against  neighboring  States,  with 
out  being  efficient  in  affording  protection. 

But  the  senator  says  it  is  a  part  of  the  policy  of  the  northern 
Democracy  to  represent  the  Republicans  as  being  hostile  to  southern 
institutions.  Sir,  it  is  a  part  of  the  policy  of  the  northern  Demo 
cracy,  as  well  as  their  duty,  to  speak  the  truth  on  that  subject.  I 
did  riot  suppose  that  any  man  would  have  the  audacity  to  arraign  a 
brother  senator  here  for  representing  the  Republican  party  as  deal 
ing  in  denunciation  and  insult  of  the  institutions  of  the  South. 
Look  to  your  Philadelphia  platform,  where  you  assert  the  sovereign 
power  of  Congress  over  the  Territories  for  their  government,  and 
demand  that  it  shall  be  exerted  against  those  twin  relics  of  barbar 
ism — polygamy  and  slavery. 

Mr.  President,  for  what  purpose  does  the  Republican  party  appeal 
to  northern  passions  and  northern  prejudices  against  southern  insti 
tutions  and  the  southern  people,  unless  it  is  to  operate  upon  those 
institutions  ?  They  represent  southern  institutions  as  no  better  than 
polygamy ;  the  slaveholder  as  no  better  than  the  polygamist ;  and 
complain  that  we  should  intimate  that  they  did  not  like  to  associate 
with  the  slaveholder  any  better  than  with  the  polygamist. 

1  have  always  noticed  that  those  men  who  were  so  far  off  from 
the  slave  States  that  they  did  not  know  anything  about  them,  are 


168  THE     LIFE     AND      SPEECHES     OF 

most  anxious  for  the  fate  of  the  poor  slave.  Those  men  who  are  so 
far  off  that  they  do  not  know  what  a  negro  is,  are  distressed  to  death 
about  the  condition  of  the  poor  negro.  (Laughter.)  But,  sir,  go  into 
the  horder  States,  where  we  associate  across  the  line,  where  the  civil 
ities  of  society  are  constantly  interchanged ;  where  we  trade  with 
ea?.h  other,  and  have  social  and  commercial  intercourse,  and  there 
you  will  find  them  standing  by  each  other  like  a  band  of  brothers. 
Take  southern  Illinois,  southern  Indiana,  southern  Ohio,  and  that 
part  of  Pennsylvania  bordering  on  Maryland,  and  there  you  will 
find  social  intercourse ;  commercial  intercourse  ;  good  feeling  ; 
because  those  poople  know  the  condition  of  the  slave  on  the  oppo 
site  side  of  the  line  ;  but  just  in  proportion  as  you  recede  from  the 
slave  States,  just  in  proportion  as  the  people  are  ignorant  of  the 
facts,  just  in  that  proportion  party  leaders  can  impose  on  their  sym 
pathies  and  honest  prejudices. 

Sir,  I  know  it  is  the  habit  of  the  Republican  party,  as  a  party, 
wherever  I  have  met  them,  to  make  the  warfare  in  such  a  way  as  to 
try  to  rally  the  whole  North  on  sectional  grounds  against  the  "South. 
I  know  that  it  is  to  be  the  issue,  and  it  is  proven  by  the  speech  of  the 
senator  from  New  York,  which  I  quoted  before,  and  that  of  Mr.  Lincoln, 
so  far  as  they  are  authority.  I  happen  to  have  those  speeches  before 
me.  The  senator  from  Maine  has  said  that  neither  of  these  speeches 
justified  the  conclusion  that  they  asserted,  that  the  free  States  and  the 
slave  States  cannot  coexist  permanently  in  the  same  republic.  Let  ug 
see  whether  they  do  or  not.  Mr.  Lincoln  says  : 

"  A  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand.  I  believe  this  government 
cannot  endure  permanently,  half  slave  and  half  free." 

Then  he  goes  on  to  say  they  must  all  be  one  thing  or  all  the  other, 
or  else  the  Union  cannot  endure.  What  is  the  meaning  of  that 
language,  unless  it  is  that  the  Union  cannot  permanently  exist,  half 
slave  and  half  free — that  it  must  all  become  one  thing  or  all  become 
the  other?  That  is  the  declaration.  The  declaration  is  that  the 
North  must  combine  as  a  sectional  party,  and  carry  on  the  agitation 
so  fiercely,  up  to  the  very  borders  of  the  slaveholding  States,  that  the 
master  dare  not  sleep  at  night  for  fear  that  the  robbers,  the  John 
Browns,  will  come  and  set  his  house  on  fire,  and  murder  the  women 
and  children,  before  morning,  It  is  to  surround  the  slaveholding 
States  by  a  cordon  of  free  States,  to  use  the  language  of  the  senator  ; 
to  hem  them  in,  in  order  that  you  may  smother  them  out.  The 
senator  avowed,  in  his  speech  to-day,  their  object  to  be  to  horn  in  the 
slave  States,  in  order  that  slavery  may  die  out.  How  die  out  ?  Con 
fine  it  to  its  present  limits;  let  the  ratio  of  increase  go  on  by  the 
laws  of  nature ;  and  just  in  proportion  as  the  lands  in  the  slaveholding 
States  wear  out,  the  negroes  increase,  and  you  will  seon  reach  that 
point  where  the  soil  will  not  produce  enough  to  feed  the  slaves ;  then 
hem  them  in,  and  let  them  starve  out — let  them  die  out  by  starvation. 


STEPHEN     A.    DOI7GLAS.  169 

That  is  the  policy — hem  them  in,  and  starve  them  out.  Do  as  the 
French  did  in  Algeria,  when  the  Arabs  took  to  the  caverns — smoke 
them  out,  by  making  tires  at  the  mouths  of  the  caverns,  and  keep  them 
burning  until  they  die.  The  policy  is,  to  keep  up  this  agitation  along 
the  line ;  make  slave  property  insecure  in  the  border  States  ;  keep  the 
master  constantly  in  apprehension  of  assault,  till  he  will  consent  to 
abandon  his  native  country,  leaving  his  slaves  behind  him,  or  to 
remove  them  further  south.  If  you  can  force  Kentucky  thus  to 
abolish  slavery,  you  make  Tennessee  the  border  State,  and  begin  the 
same  operation  upon  her. 

But  sir,  let  us  see  whether  the  senator  from  ISTew  York  did  not 
proclaim  the  doctrine  that  free  States  and  slave  States  cannot  perma 
nently  exist  in  the  same  republic.  He  said  : 

"It  is  an  irrepressible  conflict  between  opposing  and  enduring  forces ;  and 
it  means  that  the  United  States  must,  and  will,  sooner  or  later,  become  either 
entirely  a  slaveholding  nation  or  entirely  a  free-labor  nation." 

The  opposing  conflict  is  between  the  States  ;  the  Union  cannot 
remain  as  it  now  is,  part  free  and  part  slave.  The  conflict  between 
free  States  and  slave  States  must  go  on  until  there  is  not  a  slave  State 
left,  or  until  they  are  all  slave  States.  That  is  the  declaration  of  the 
senator  from  New  York.  The  senator  from  Maine  tried  to  make  the 
Senate  believe  that  I  had  misrepresented  the  senator  from  New  York 
and  Mr.  Lincoln,  of  Illinois,  in  stating  that  they  referred  to  a  conflict 
between  States.  He  said  that  all  they  meant  was  that  it  was  a  con 
flict  between  free  labor  and  slave  labor  in  the  same  State. 

Now,  sir,  let  me  submit  to  that  man's  candor  whether  he  will 
insist  on  that  position.  They  both  say  the  contest  will  go  on  until 
the  States  become  all  free  or  all  slave.  Then,  when  is  the  con 
test  going  to  end  ?  When  they  become  all  slave  ?  Will  there  not 
be  the  same  conflict  between  free  labor  and  slave  labor,  after  every 
State  has  become  a  slave  State,  that  there  is  JQOW  ?  If  that  was  the 
meaning,  would  the  conflict  between  slave  labor  and  free  labor  cease 
even  when  every  State  had  become  slaveholding  ?  Have  not  all  the 
slaveholding  States  a  large  number  of  free  laborers  within  their 
limits ;  and  if  there  is  an  irrepressible  conflict  between  free  labor  and 
slave  labor,  will  you  remove  that  conflict  by  making  the  States  all 
slave  ?  Yet,  the  senator  from  New  York  says  they  must  become  all 
slave  or  all  free  before  the  conflict  ceases.  Sir,  that  shows  that  the 
senator  from  New  York  meant  what  I  represented  him  as  meaning. 
It  shows  that  a  man  who  knows  the  meaning  of  words,  and  has  the 
heart  to  express  them  as  they  read,  cannot  fail  to  know  that  that 
was  the  meaning  of  those  senators.  The  boldness  with  wrhich  a 
charge  of  misrepresentation  may  be  made  in  this  body  will  not  give 
character  to  it  when  it  is  contradicted  by  the  facts.  I  dislike  to 
have  to  repel  these  charges  of  unfairness  and  misrepresentation  ;  yet 
the  senator  began  with  a  series  of  innuendoes,  with  a  series  of  com- 

8 


170  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

plaints  of  misrepresentation,  showing  that  he  was  afraid  to  meet  tho 
rt*l  issues  of  his  party,  and  would  make  up  for  that  by  personal 
assaults  and  innuendoes  against  the  opposite  party. 

He  goes  hack  to  a  speech  of  mine  in  opposition  to  the  Lecompton 
constitution,  in  which  I  said  that  if  you  would  send  that  constitu 
tion  hack  and  let  the  people  of  Kansas  Tote  for  or  against  it,  if  they 
voted  for  a  free  State  or  a  slave  State  I  would  go  for  it  without 
caring  whether  they  voted  slavery  up  or  down.  He  thinks  it  is  a 
great  charge  against  me  that  I  do  not  care  whether  the  people  vote 
it  up  or  vote  it  down. 

The  idea  is  taken  from  a  speech  in  the  Senate — the  first  speech  I 
made  against  the  Lecompton  constitution.  It  was  quoted  all  over 
Illinois  by  Mr.  Lincoln  in  the  canvass,  and  I  repeated  the  sentiment 
each  time  it  was  quoted  against  me,  and  repeated  it  in  the  South  as 
well  as  the  North.  I  say  this  :  if  the  people  of  Kansas  want  a  slave 
State,  it  is  their  business,  not  mine  ;  if  they  want  a  free  State,  they 
have  a  right  to  have  it ;  and  hence,  I  do  not  care,  so  far  as  regards 
my  action,  whether  they  make  it  a  free  State  or  not ;  it  is  none  of 
my  business.  But  the  senator  says  h«  does  care,  he  has  a  preference 
between  freedom  and  slavery.  How  long  would  this  preference  last 
if  he  was  a  sugar  planter  in  Louisiana,  residing  on  his  estate,  instead 
of  living  in  Maine?  Sir,  I  hold  the  doctrine  that  a  wise  statesman 
will  adapt  his  laws  to  the  wants,  conditions  and  interests  of  the 
people  to  be  governed  by  them.  Slavery  may  be  very  essential  in 
one  climate  and  totally  useless  in  another.  If  I  were  a  citizen  of 
Louisiana  I  would  vote  for  retaining  and  maintaining  slavery,  be 
cause  I  believe  the  good  of  that  people  would  require  it.  As  a  citi 
zen  of  Illinois  I  am  utterly  opposed  to  it,  because  our  interests  would 
not  be  promoted  by  it.  I  should  like  to  see  the  Abolitionist  who 
would  go  and  live  in  a  southern  country  that  would  not  get  over  his 
scruples  very  soon  and  have  a  plantation  as  quickly  as  he  could  get 
the  money  to  buy  it. 

I  have  said  and  repeat  that  this  question  of  slavery  is  one  of 
climate,  of  political  economy,  of  self-interest,  not  a  question  of  legis 
lation.  Wherever  the  climate,  the  soil,  the  health  of  the  country 
are  such  that  it  cannot  be  cultivated  by  white  labor,  you  will  have 
African  labor,  and  compulsory  labor  at  that.  Wherever  white  labor 
can  be  employed  cheapest  and -most  profitably,  there  African  labor 
will  retire  and  white  labor  will  take  its  place. 

You  cannot  force  slavery  by  all  the  acts  of  Congress  you  may  take 
on  one  inch  of  territory  against  the  will  of  the  people,  and  you  can 
not  by  any  law  you  can  make  keep  it  out  from  one  inch  of  American 
territory  where  the  people  want  it.  You  tried  it  in  Illinois.  By  the 
Ordinance  of  1787,  slavery  was  prohibited,  and  yet  our  people,  be 
lieving  that  slavery  would  be  profitable  to  them,  established  heredi 
tary  servitude  in  the  Territory  by  territorial  legislation,  in  defiance 
of  your  federal  ordinance.  We  maintained  slavery  there  just  so  long 
as  Congress  said  we  should  not  have  it,  and  we  abolished  it  at  jnst 


STEPHEN      A.     DOUGLAS.  171 

the  moment  you  recognized  us  as  a  State,  with  the  right  to  do  as  we 
pleased.  When  we  established  it,  it  was  on  the  supposition  that  it 
was  our  interest  to  do  so.  When  we  abolished  it,  we  did  so  because 
experience  proved  that  it  was  not  our  interest  to  have  it.  I  hold 
that  slavery  is  a  question  of  political  economy,  to  be  determined  by 
climate,  by  soil,  by  production,  by  self-interest,  and  hence  the  people 
to  be  "affected  by  it  are  the  most  impartial  jury  to  try  the  fact, 
whether  their  interest  requires  them  to  have  it  or  not. 

But  the  senator  thinks  it  is  a  great  crime  for  me  to  say  that  I  do 
not  care  whether  they  have  it  or  not.  I  care  just  this  far :  I  want 
every  people  to  have  that  kind  of  government,  that  system  of  laws, 
that  class  of  institutions,  which  will  best  promote  their  welfare,  and 
I  want  them  to  decide  for  themselves ;  and  so  that  they  decide  it  to 
suit  themselves,  I  am  satisfied,  without  stopping  to  inquire  or  caring 
which  way  they  decide  it.  That  is  what  I  meant  by  that  declara 
tion,  and  I  am  ready  to  stand  by  it. 

The  senator  has  made  the  discovery — I  suppose  it  is  very  new,  for 
he  would  not  repeat  anything  that  was  old,  after  calling  me  to  ac 
count  for  expressing  an  idea  that  had  been  heard  of  before — that  I 
re-opened  the  agitation  by  bringing  in  the  Nebraska  Bill  in  1854; 
and  he  tries  to  put  the  responsibility  of  the  crimes  perpetrated  by  his 
political  friends,  and  in  violation  of  the  law,  upon  the  provisions  of 
the  law  itself.  We  passed  a  bill  to  allow  the  people  of  Kansas  to 
form  and  regulate  their  own  institutions  to  suit  themselves.  No 
sooner  had  we  placed  that  law  on  the  statute-book,  than  his  political 
friends  formed  conspiracies  and  combinations  in  the  different  New 
England  States  to  import  a  set  of  desperadoes  into  Kansas  to  control 
the  elections  and  the  institutions  of  that  country  in  fraud  of  the  law 
of  Congress. 

Sir,  I  desire  to  make  the  legislation  broad  enough  to  reach  con 
spiracies  and  combinations  of  that  kind ;  and  I  would  also  include 
combinations  and  conspiracies  on  the  other  side.  My  object  is  to 
establish  firmly  the  doctrine  that  each  State  is  to  do  its  own  voting, 
establish  its  own  institutions,  make  its  own  laws  without  interference, 
directly  or  indirectly,  from  any  outside  power.  The  gentleman  says 
that  is  squatter  sovereignty.  Call  it  squatter  sovereignty,  call  it 
popular  sovereignty,  call  it  what  you  please,  it  is  the  great  principle 
of  self-government  on  which  this  Union  was  formed,  and  by  the  pre 
servation  of  which  alone  it  can  be  maintained.  It  is  the  right  of  the 
people  of  every  State  to  govern  themselves  and  make  their  own  laws, 
and  be  protected  from  outside  violence  or  interference,  directly  or 
indirectly.  Sir,  I  confess  the  object  of  the  legislation  I  contemplate 
is  to  put  down  this  outside  interference;  it  is  to  repress  this  "irre 
pressible  conflict;"  it  is  to  bring  the  government  back  to  the  true 
principles  of  the  Constitution,  and  let  each  people  in  this  Union  res1, 
secure  in  the  enjoyment  of  domestic  tranquillity  without  apprehen 
sion  from  neighboring  States. 


172  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 


ON  THE  ADMISSION  OF  KANSAS  UNDER  THE  WYAN- 
DOTT  CONSTITUTION. 

IN   REPLY   TO   ME.    SEWAED   AET>   ME.    TBTTMBUXL. 

Delivered  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  February  29,  1860. 

MR.  PEESIDENT  :  I  trust  I  shall  be  pardoned  for  a  few  remarks  upon 
so  much  of  the  senator's  speech  as  consists  in  an  assault  on  the  De 
mocratic  party,  and  especially  with  regard  to  the  Kansas-Nebraska 
bill,  of  which  I  was  the  responsible  author.  It  has  become  fashion 
able  now-a-days  for  each  gentleman  making  a  speech  against  the  D^- 
mocratic  party  to  refer  to  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act  as  the  cause  of  ail 
the  disturbances  that  have  since  ensued.  They  talk  about  the  repeal 
of  a  sacred  compact  that  had  been  undisturbed  for  more  than  a  quar 
ter  of  a  century,  as  if  those  who  complained  of  violated  faith  had 
been  faithful  to  the  provisions  of  the  Missouri  Compromise.  Sir, 
wherein  consisted  the  necessity  for  the  repeal  or  abrogation  of  that 
act,  except  it  was  that  the  majority  in  the  northern  States  refused 
to  carry  out  the  Missouri  Compromise  in  good  faith  ?  I  stood  willing 
to  extend  it  to  the  Pacific  Ocean,  and  abide  by  it  forever,  and  the 
entire  South,  without  one  exception  in  this  body,  was  willing  thus 
to  abide  by  it ;  but  the  freesoil  element  of  the  northern  States  was 
so  strong  as  to  defeat  that  measure,  and  thus  open  the  slavery  ques 
tion  anew.  The  men  who  now  complain  of  the  abrogation  of  that 
act  were  the  very  men  who  denounced  it,  and  denounced  all  of  us 
who  were  willing  to  abide  by  it  so  long  as  it  stood  upon  the  statute- 
book.  Sir,  it  was  the  defeat,  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  of  the 
enactment  of  the  bill  to  extend  the  Missouri  Compromise  to  the 
Pacific  Ocean,  after  it  had  passed  the  Senate  on  my  own  motion,  that 
opened  the  controversy  of  1850,  which  was  terminated  by  the  adop 
tion  of  the  measures  of  that  year. 

We  carried  those  Compromise  measures  over  the  head  of  the  sena 
tor  from  New  York  and  his  present  associates.  "We,  in  those  mea 
sures,  established  a  great  principle,  rebuking  his  doctrine  of  inter 
vention  by  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  to  prohibit  slavery  in 
the  Territories.  Both  parties,  in  1852,  pledged  themselves  to  abide 
by  that  principle,  and  thus  stood  pledged  not  to  prohibit  slavery  in 
the  Territories  by  act  of  Congress.  The  Whig  party  affirmed  that 
pledge,  and  so  did  the  Democracy.  In  1854  we  only  carried  out,  in 
the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act,  the  same  principle  that  had  been  affirmed 
in  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850.  I  repeat  that  their  resistance 
to  carrying  out  in  good  faith  the  settlement  of  1820,  their  defeat  o* 


STEPHEN     A.    DOUGLAS.  173 

the  bill  for  extending  it  to  the  Pacific  Ocean,  was  the  sole  cause  of 
tho  agitation  of  1850,  and  gave  rise  to  the  necessity  of  establishing 
the  principle  of  non-intervention  by  Congress  with  slavery  in  the 
Territories. 

Hence  I  am  not  willing  to  sit  here  and  allow  the  senator  from 
New  York,  with  all  the  weight  of  authority  he  has  with  the  powerful 
party  of  which  he  is  the  head,  to  arraign  me  and  the  party  to  which 
I  belong  with  the  responsibility  for  that  agitation  which  rests  solely 
upon  him  and  his  associates.  Sir,  the  Democratic  party  was  willing 
to  carry  out  the  Compromise  in  good  faith.  Having  been  defeated 
in  that  for  the  want  of  numbers,  and  having  established  the  principle 
of  non-intervention  in  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850,  in  lieu  of 
it,  the  Democratic  party  from  that  day  to  this  has  been  faithful  to 
the  new  principle  of  adjustment.  Whatever  agitation  has  grown 
out  of  the  question  since,  has  been  occasioned  by  the  resistance  of 
the  party  of  which  that  senator  is  the  head,  to  this  great  principle 
which  has  been  ratified  by  the  American  people  at  two  Presidential 
elections.  If  he  was  willing  to  acquiesce  in  the  solemn  and  repeated 
judgment  of  that  American  people  to  which  he  appeals,  there  would 
be  no  agitation  in  this  country  now. 

But,  sir,  the  whole  argument  of  that  senator  goes  far  beyond  the 
question  of  slavery,  even  in  the  Territories.  His  entire  argument 
rests  on  the  assumption  that  the  negro  and  the  white  man  were  equal 
by  Divine  law,  and  hence  that  all  laws  and  constitutions  and  govern 
ments  in  violation  of  the  principle  of  negro  equality  are  in  violation 
of  the  law  of  God.  That  is  the  basis  upon  which  his  speech  rests. 

He  quotes  the  Declaration  of  Independence  to  show  that  the  fathers 
of  the  Revolution  understood  that  the  negro  was  placed  on  an  equality 
with  the  white  man,  by  quoting  the  clause,  "  we  hold  these  truths  to 
be  self-evident,  that  all  men  are  created  equal,  and  are  endowed 
by  their  Creator  with  certain  inalienable  rights,  among  which  are 
life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness."  Sir,  the  doctrine  of  that 
senator  and  of  his  party  is — and  I  have  had  to  meet  it  for  eight 
years — that  the  Declaration  of  Independence  intended  to  recognize 
the  negro  and  the  white  man  as  equal  under  the  Divine  law,  and 
hence  that  all  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
which  recognize  slavery  are  in  violation  of  the  Divine  law.  In  other 
words,  it  is  an  argument  against  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  upon  the  ground  that  it  is  contrary  to  the  law  of  God.  Tho 
senator  from  New  York  has  long  held  that  doctrine.  The  senator 
from  New  York  has  often  proclaimed  to  the  world  that  the  Consti 
tution  of  the  United  States  was  in  violation  of  the  Divine  law,  and 
that  senator  will  not  contradict  the  statement.  I  have  an  extract 
from  one  of  his  speeches  now  before  me,  in  which  that  proposition  is 
distinctly  put  forth.  In  a  speech  made  in  the  State  of  Ohio,  in  184.8, 
ho  said : 

"  Slavery  is  the  sin  of  not  some  of  the  States  only,  but  of  them  all ;  of  not 
one  nationality,  but  of  all  nations.  It  perverted  and  corrupted  the  moral  senso 


174:  THE     LIFE     AND      SP  ^M  CHE 


of  mankind  deeply  and  universally,  and  this  perversion  became  a  universal 
habit.      Habits  of  thought  become  fixed  principles.     No  American  State  has 
yet  delivered  itself  entirely  from  these  habits.      We,  in  New  York,  are  guilty 
of  slavery  still  by  withholding  the  right  of  suffrage  from  the  race  we  have 
emancipated.    You,  in  Ohio,  are  guilty  in  the  same  way  by  a  system  of  black 
laws  still  more  aristocratic  and  odious.    It  is  written  in  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  that  five  slaves  shall  count  equal  to  three  freemen  as  a  basis  o£_ 
representation ;  and  it  is  written,  also,  IN  VIOLATION  OF  DIVINE  LAW/ 
that  we  shall  surrender  the  fugitive  slave  who  takes  refuge  at  our  firesides  from 
his  relentless  pursuer." 

There  you  find  his  doctrine  clearly  laid  down,  that  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  is  "  in  violation  of  the  Divine  law,"  and  there 
fore,  is  not  to  be  obeyed.  You  are  told  that  the  clause  relating  to 
fugitive  slaves,  being  in  violation  of  the  Divine  law,  is  not  binding 
on  mankind.  This  has  been  the  doctrine  of  the  senator  from  New 
York  for  years.  I  have  not  heard  it  in  the  Senate  to-day  for  the 
first  time.  I  have  met  in  my  own  State,  for  the  last  ten  years,  this 
same  doctrine,  that  the  Declaration  of  Independence  recognized  the 
negro  and  the  white  man  as  equal ;  that  the  negro  and  white  man 
are  equals  by  Divine  law,  and  that  every  provision  of  our  Constitu 
tion  and  laws  which  establishes  inequality  between  the  negro  and 
the  white  man,  is  void,  because  contrary  to  the  law  of  God. 

The  senator  from  New  York  says,  in  the  very  speech  from  which 
I  have  quoted,  that  New  York  is  yet  a  slave  State.  Why  ?  Not 
that  she  has  a  slave  within  her  limits,  but  because  the  Constitution 
of  New  York  does  not  allow  a  negro  to  vote  on  an  equality  with  a 
white  man.  For  that  reason  he  says  New  York  is  still  a  slave  State ; 
for  that  reason  every  other  State  that  discriminates  between  tho 
negro  and  the  white  man  is  a  slave  State,  leaving  but  a  very  few 
States  in  the  Union  that  are  free  from  his  objection.  Yet,  notwith 
standing  the  senator  is  committed  to  these  doctrines,  notwithstanding 
the  leading  men  of  his  party  are  committed  to  them,  he  argues  that 
they  have  been  accused  of  being  in  favor  of  negro  equality,  and 
says  the  tendency  of  their  doctrine  is  the  equality  of  the  white  man. 
He  introduces  the  objection,  and  fails  to  answer  it.  He  states  the 
proposition  and  dodges  it,  to  leave  the  inference  that  he  does  not 
indorse  it.  Sir,  I  desire  to  see  these  gentlemen  carry  out  their  prin 
ciples  to  their  logical  conclusion.  If  they  will  persist  in  the  decla 
ration  that  the  negro  is  made  the  equal  of  the  white  man,  and  that 
any  inequality  is  in  violation  of  the  Divine  law,  then  let  them  carry 
it  out  in  their  legislation  by  conferring  on  the  negroes  all  the  rights  of 
citizenship  the  same  as  on  white  men.  For  one.  I  never  held  to  any 
such  doctrine.  I  hold  that  the  Declaration  of  Independence  wa-; 
only  referring  to  the  white  man — to  the  governing  race  of  this  coun 
try,  who  were  in  conflict  with  Great  Britain,  and  had  no  reference  to 
the  negro  race  at  all,  when  it  declared  that  all  men  were  created 
equal. 

Sir,  if  the  signers  of  that  declaration  had  understood  the  instru 
ment  then  as  the  senator  from  New  York  now  construes  it,  were 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  175 

th«y  not  bound  on  that  day,  at  that  very  hour,  to  emancipate  all 
their  slaves  ?  If  Mr.  Jefferson  had  meant  that  his  negro  slaves  wero 
created  by  the  Almighty  his  equals,  was  he  not  bound  to  emancipate 
the  slaves  on  the  very  day  that  he  signed  his  name  to  the  Declaration 
of  Independence  ?  Yet  no  one  of  the  signers  of  that  declaration 
emancipated  his  slaves.  ISTo  one  of  the  States  on  whose  behalf  the 
declaration  was  signed,  emancipated  its  slaves  until  after  the  Revo 
lution  was  over.  Every  one  of  the  original  colonies,  every  one  of 
the  thirteen  original  States,  sanctioned  and  legalized  slavery  until 
after  the  Revolution  was  closed.  These  facts  show  conclusively  that 
the  Declaration  of  Independence  was  never  intended  to  bear  the 
construction  placed  upon  it  by  the  senator  from  New  York,  and  by 
that  enormous  tribe  of  lecturers  that  go  through  the  country  deliver 
ing  lectures  in  country  school-houses  and  basements  of  churches  to 
abolitionists,  in  order  to  teach  the  children  that  the  Almighty  had 
put  his  seal  of  condemnation  upon  any  inequality  between  the  white 
man  and  the  negro. 

Mr.  President,  I  am  free  to  say  here — what  I  have  said  over  and 
over  again  at  home — that,  in  my  opinion,  this  government  was  made 
by  white  men  for  the  benefit  of  white  men  and  their  posterity  for 
ever,  and  should  be  administered  by  white  men,  and  by  none  other 
whatsoever. 

ME.  DOOLITTLE. — I  will  ask  the  honorable  senator,  then,  why  not 
give  the  Territories  to  white  men? 

MR.  DOUGLAS. — Mr.  President,  I  am  in  favor  of  throwing  the  Ter 
ritories  open  to  all  the  white  men,  and  all  the  negroes,  too,  that 
choose  to  go,  and  then  allow  the  white  men  to  govern  the  Territory. 
I  would  not  let  one  of  the  negroes,  free  or  slave,  either  vote  or  hold 
office  anywhere,  where  I  had  the  right,  under  the  Constitution,  to 
prevent  it.  I  am  in  favor  of  each  State  and  each  Territory  of  this 
Union  taking  care  of  its  own  negroes,  free  or  slave.  If  they  want 
slavery,  let  them  have  it ;  if  they  desire  to  prohibit  slavery,  let  them 
do  it ;  it  is  their  business,  not  mine.  We  in  Illinois  tried  slavery 
while  we  were  a  Territory,  and  found  it  was  not  profitable ;  and 
hence  we  turned  philanthropists  and  abolished  it,  just  as  our  British 
friends  across  the  ocean  did.  They  established  slavery  in  all  their 
colonies,  and  when  they  found  they  could  not  make  any  more  money 
out  of  it,  abolished  it.  I  hold  that  the  question  of  slavery  is  one  of 
political  economy,  governed  by  the  laws  of  climate,  soil,  productions, 
and  self-interest,  and  not  by  mere  statutory  provision.  I  repudiate 
the  doctrine,  that  because  free  institutions  may  be  best  in  one  climate 
they  are,  necessarily,  the  best  everywhere ;  or  that  because  slavery  may 
be  indispensable  in  one  locality,  therefore  it  is  desirable  everywhere. 
I  hold  that  a  wise  statesman  will  always  adapt  his  legislation  to  the 
wants,  interests,  condition,  and  necessities  of  tho  people  to  be  go 
verned  by  it.  One  people  will  bear  different  institutions  from 
another.  One  climate  demands  different  institutions  from  another. 


176  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

I  repeat,  then,  what  I  have  often  had  occasion  to  say,  that  I  do  not 
think  uniformity  is  either  possible  or  desirable.  I  wish  to  see  no  two 
States'  precisely  alike  in  their  domestic  institutions  in  this  Union. 
Our  system  rests  on  the  supposition  that  each  State  has  something 
in  her  condition  or  climate,  or  her  circumstances,  requiring  laws  and 
institutions  different  from  every  other  State  of  the  Union.  Hence  I 
answer  the  question  of  the  senator  from  Wisconsin,  that  I  am  willing 
that  a  Territory  settled  by  white  men  shall  have  negroes,  free  or 
slave,  just  as  the  white  men  shall  determine,  but  not  as  the  negroes 
shall  prescribe. 

The  senator  from  New  York  has  coined  a  new  definition  of  the 
States  of  the  Union — labor  States  and  capital  States.  The  capital 
States,  I  believe,  are  the  slaveholding  States ;  the  labor  States  are 
the  non-slaveholding  States.  It  has  taken  that  senator  a  good  many 
years  to  coin  that  phrase  and  bring  it  into  use.  I  have  heard  him 
discuss  these  favorite  theories  of  his  for  the  last  ten  years,  1  think, 
and  I  never  heard  of  capital  States  and  labor  States  before.  It 
strikes  me  that  something  has  recently  occurred  up  in  New  England 
that  makes  it  politic  to  get  up  a  question  between  capital  and  labor, 
and  take  the  side  of  the  numbers  against  the  few.  We  have  seen 
some  accounts  in  the  newspapers  of  combinations  and  strikes  among 
the  journeymen  shoemakers  in  the  towns  there— labor  against  capi 
tal.  The  senator  has  a  new  word  ready  coined  to  suit  their  case, 
and  make  the  laborers  believe  that  he  is  on  the  side  of  the  most 
numerous  class  of  voters. 

What  produced  that  strike  among  the  journeymen  shoemakers? 
.Why  are  the  mechanics  of  New  England,  the  laborers  and  the  em 
ployees,  novv  reduced  to  the  starvation  point?  Simply  because,  by 
your  treason,  by  your  sectional  agitation,  you  have  created  a  strife 
between  the  North  and  the  South,  have  driven  away  your  southern 
customers,  and  thus  deprive  the  laborers  of  the  means  of  support. 
This  is  the  fruit  of  your  Republican  dogmas.  It  is  another  step,  fol 
lowing  John  Brown,  of  the  "  irrepressible  conflict."  Therefore  we 
now  get  this  new  coinage  of  "  labor  States  " — he  is  on  the  side  of 
the  shoemakers  (laughter),  and  "  capital  States  " — he  is  against 
those  that  furnish  the  hides.  (Laughter.)  I  think  those  shoemakers 
will  understand  this  business.  They  know  why  it  is  that  they  do 
not  get  so  many  orders  as  they  did  a  few  months  ago.  It  is  not 
confined  to  the  shoemakers ;  it  reaches  every  mechanic's  shop  and 
every  factory.  All  the  large  laboring  establishments  of  the  North 
feel  the  pressure  produced  by  the  doctrine  of  the  "irrepressible  con 
flict."  This  new  coinage  of  words  will  not  save  them  from  the  just 
responsibility  that  follows  the  doctrines  they  have  been  inculcating. 
If  they  had  abandoned  the  doctrine  of  the  "irrepressible  conflict," 
and  proclaimed  the  true  doctrine  of  the  Constitution,  that  each  State 
is  entirely  free  to  do  just  as  it  pleases,  have  slavery  as  long  as  it 
chaoses,  and  abolish  it  when  it  wishes,  there  would  be  no  conflict ; 


STEPHEN     A.    DOUGLAS.  177 

the  northern  and  southern  States  would  be  brethren ;  there  would 
be  fraternity  between  us,  and  your  shoemakers  would  not  strike  for 
higher  prices. 

******** 

Sir,  the  feeling  among  the  masses  of  the  South  we  find  typified  in 
the  dress  of  the  senator  from  Virginia  (Mr.  Mason)  ;  they  are  deter 
mined  to  wear  the  homespun  of  their  own  productions  rather  than 
trade  with  the  North.  That  is  the  feeling  which  has  produced  this 
state  of  distress  in  our  manufacturing  towns. 

The  senator  from  New  York  has  also  referred  to  the  recent  action 
of  the  people  of  New  Mexico,  in  establishing  a  code  for  the  protection 
of  property  in  slaves,  and  he  congratulates  the  country  upon  the 
final  success  of  the  advocates  of  free  institutions  in  Kansas.  He 
could  not  fail,  however,  to  say,  in  order  to  preserve  what  he  thought 
was  a  striking  antithesis,  that  popular  sovereignty  in  Kansas  meant 
State  sovereignty  in  Missouri.  No,  sir,  popular  sovereignty  in 
Kansas  was  stricken  down  by  unholy  combination  in  New  England 
to  ship  men  to  Kansas — rowdies  and  vagabonds — with  the  Bible  in 
one  hand  and  Sharpe's  rifle  in  the  other,  to  shoot  down  the  friends 
of  self-government.  Popular  sovereignty  in  Kansas  was  stricken 
down  by  the  combinations  in  the  northern  States  to  carry  elections 
under  pretence  of  emigrant  aid  societies.  In  retaliation,  Missouri 
formed  aid  societies  too  ;  and  she,  following  your  example,  sent  men 
into  Kansas,  and  then  occurred  the  conflict.  Now,  you  throw  tho 
blame  upon  Missouri  merely  because  she  followed  your  example,  and 
attempted  to  resist  its  consequences.  I  condemn  both  ;  but  I  con 
demn  a  thousand-fold  more  those  that  set  the  example  and  struck 
the  first  blow,  than  those  who  thought  they  would  act  upon  the 
principle  of  fighting  the  devil  with  his  own  weapons,  and  resorted  to 
the  same  means  that  you  had  employed. 

But,  sir,  notwithstanding  the  efforts  of  emigrant  aid  societies, 
the  people  of  Kansas  have  had  their  own  way,  and  the  people 
of  New  Mexico  have  had  their  own  way.  Kansas  has  adopted  a 
free  State ;  New  Mexico  has  established  a  slave  Territory.  I  am 
content  with  both.  If  the  people  of  New  Mexico  want  slavery,  let 
them  have  it,  and  I  never  will  vote  to  repeal  their  slave  code.  If 
Kansas  does  not  want  slavery,  I  will  not  help  anybody  to  force  it  on 
her.  Let  each  do  as  it  pleases.  When  Kansas  comes  to  the  conclu 
sion  that  slavery  will  not  suit  her,  and  promote  her  interest  better 
than  the  prohibition,  let  her  pass  her  own  slave  code ;  I  will  not 
pass  it  for  her.  Whenever  New  Mexico  gets  tired  of  her  code,  she 
must  repeal  it  for  herself ;  I  will  not  repeal  it  for  her.  Non-inter 
vention  by  Congress  with  slavery  in  the  Territories  is  the  platform 
on  which  I  stand. 

But  I  want  to  know  why  will  not  the  senator  from  New  York 
carry  out  his  principles  to  their  logical  conclusions  ?  Why  is  there 
not  a  man  in  that  whole  party,  in  this  body  or  the  House  of  Kepre- 
eentatives,  bold  enough  to  redeem  the  pledges  which  that  party  has 

8* 


173       THE  LIFE  AND   SPEECHES   OF 

made  to  the  country  ?  I  believe  you  said,  in  your  Philadelphia 
platform,  that  Congress  had  sovereign  power  over  the  Territories 
for  their  government,  and  that  it  was  the  duty  of  Congress,  to  pro 
hibit,  in  all  the  Territories,  those  twin  relics  of  barbarism,  slavery 
and  polygamy.  Why  do  you  not  carry  out  your  pledges  ?  Why  do 
y  ou  not  introduce  your  bill  ?  The  senator  from  New  York  says  they 
have  no  new  measures  to  originate  ;  no  new  movement  to  make;  no 
new  bill  to  bring  forward.  Then  what  confidence  shall  the  Ameri 
can  people  repose  in  your  faith  and  sincerity,  when,  having  the 
power  in  one  House,  you  do  not  bring  forward  a  bill  t*  carry  out 
your  principles  ?  The  fact  is,  these  principles  are  avowed  to  get 
votes  in  the  North,  but  not  to  be  carried  into  effect  by  acts  of  Con 
gress.  You  are  afraid  of  hurting  your  party  if  you  bring  in  your 
bill  to  repeal  the  slave  code  of  New  Mexico  ;  afraid  of  driving  off  the 
conservative  men;  you  think  it  is  wise  to  wait  until  after  the  election. 
I  should  be  glad  to  have  confidence  enough  in  the  sincerity  of  the 
other  side  of  the  chamber  to  suppose  that  they  had  sufficient 
courage  to  bring  forward  a  law  to  carry  out  their  principles  to  their 
logical  conclusions.  I  find  nothing  of  that.  They  wish  to  agitate, 
to  excite  the  people  of  the  North  against  the  South  to  get  votes  for 
the  Presidential  election ;  but  they  shrink  from  carrying  out  their 
measures  lest  they  might  throw  off  some  conservative  voters  who  do 
not  like  the  Democratic  party. 

But,  sir,  if  the  senator  from  New  York,  in  the  event  that  he  is 
made  President,  intends  to  carry  out  his  principles  to  their  logical 
conclusions,  let  us  see  where  they  will  lead  him.  In  the  same  speech 
that  I  read  from  a  few  minutes  ago,  I  find  the  following.  Address 
ing  the  people  of  Ohio,  he  said  : 

"  You  blush  not  at  these  things,  because  they  have  become  as  familiar  as 
household  words  ;  and  your  pretended  free-soil  allies  claim  peculiar  merit  for 
maintaining  these  miscalled  guaranties  of  slavery,  which  they  find  in  the  na 
tional  compact.  Does  not  all  this  prove  that  the  Whig  party  have  kept  up 
with  the  spirit  of  the  age  ;  that  it  is  as  true  and  faithful  to  human  freedom  as 
the  inert  conscience  of  the  American  people  will  permit  it  to  be  ?  What  then, 
you  say,  can  nothing  be  done  for  freedom,  because  the  public  conscience  re 
mains  inert?  Yes,  much  can  be  done,  everything  can  be  done.  Slavery  can 
be  limited  to  its  present  bounds." 

That  is  the  first  thing  that  can  be  done — slavery  can  be  limited  to 
its  present  bounds.  What  else  ? 

"It  can  be  ameliorated.  It  can  and  must  be  abolished,  and  you  and  I  can  and 
must  do  it." 

There  you  find  are  two  propositions  :  first,  slavery  was  to  be  limited 
to  the  States  in  which  it  was  then  situated.  It  did  not  then  exist  in 
any  Territory.  Slavery  was  confined  to  the  States.  The  first  pro 
position  was  that  slavery  must  be  restricted,  and  confined  to  those 
States.  The  second  was,  that  he,  as  a  New  Yorker,  and  the}-,  the 
people  of  Ohio,  must  and  would  abolish  it;  that  is  to  say,  abolish  it 


STEPHEN      A.     DOUGLAS.  179 

in  the  States.  They  could  abolish  it  nowhere  else.  Every  appeal  they 
make  to  Northern  prejudice  and  passion,  is  against  the  institution  of 
slavery  everywhere,  and  they  would  not  be  able  to  retain  their  abo 
lition  allies,  the  rank  and  file,  unless  they  held  out  the  hope  that  it  was 
the  mission  of  the  Republican  party,  if  successful,  to  abolish  slavery 
in  the  States  as  well  as  in  the  Territories  of  the  Union. 

And  again  in  the  same  speech,  the  senator  from  New  York  advised 
the  people  to  disregard  constitutional  obligations  in  these  words : 

"  But  we  must  begin  deeper  and  lower  than  the  composition  and  combination 
of  factions  or  parties,  wherein  the  strength  and  security  of  slavery  lie.  You 
answer  that  it  lies  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  the  constitutions 
and  laws  of  slaveholding  States.  Not  at  all.  It  is  in  the  erroneous  sentiment 
of  the  American  people.  Constitutions  and  laws  can  no  more  rise  above  the 
virtue  of  the  people  than  the  limpid  stream  can  climb  above  its  native  spring. 
Inculcate  the  love  of  freedom  and  the  equal  rights  of  man  under  the  paternal 
roof;  see  to  it  that  they  are  taught  in  the  schools  and  in  the  churches ;  reform 
your  own  code  ;  extend  a  cordial  welcome  to  the  fugitive  who  lays  his  weary 
limbs  at  your  door,  and  defend  him  as  you  would  your  paternal  gods  ;  correct 
your  own  error,  that  slavery  is  a  constitutional  guaranty  which  may  not  be 
released,  and  ought  not  to  be  relinquished." 

I  know  they  tell  us  that  all  this  is  to  be  done  according  to  the 
Constitution;  they  would  not  violate  the  Constitution  except  so  far 
as  the  Constitution  violates  the  law  of  God — that  is  all — and  they  are 
to  be  the  judges  of  how  far  the  Constitution  does  violate  the  law  of 
God.  They  say  that  every  clause  of  the  Constitution  that  recognizes 
property  in  slaves,  is  in  violation  of  the  Divine  law,  and  hence  should 
not  be  obeyed ;  and  with  that  interpretation  of  the  Constitution,  they 
turn  to  the  South  and  say,  "We  will  give  you  all  your  rights  under 
the  Constitution,  as  we  explain  it." 

Then  the  senator  devoted  about  a  third  of  his  speech  to  a  very 
beautiful  homily  on  the  glories  of  our  Union.  All  that  he  has  said, 
all  that  any  other  man  has  ever  said,  all  that  the  most  eloquent 
tongue  can  ever  utter,  in  behalf  of  the  blessings  and  the  advantages  of 
this  glorious  Union,  I  fully  indorse.  But  still,  sir,  I  am  prepared  to  say, 
that  the  Union  is  glorious  only  when  the  Constitution  is  preserved 
inviolate.  He  eulogized  the  Union.  I,  too,  am  for  the  Union  ;  I  in 
dorse  the  eulogies ;  but  still,  what  is  the  Union  worth,  unless  the  Con 
stitution  is  preserved  and  maintained  inviolate  in  all  its  provisions? 

Sir,  I  have  no  faith  in  the  Union-loving  sentiments  of  those  who 
will  not  carry  out  the  Constitution  in  good  faith,  as  our  fathers  made 
it.  Professions  of  fidelity  to  the  Union  will  be  taken  for  naught,  un 
less  they  are  accompanied  by  obedience  to  the  Constitution  upon 
which  the  Union  rests.  I  have  a  right  to  insist  that  the  Constitution 
shall  be  maintained  inviolate  in  all  its  parts,  notonly  that  which  suits 
the  temper  of  the  North,  but  every  clause  of  that  Constitution,  whe 
ther  you  like  it  or  dislike  it.  Your  oath  to  support  the  Constitution 
binds  you  to  every  line,  word,  and  syllable  of  the  instrument.  You 
have  no  right  to  say  that  any  given  clause  is  in  violation  of  the  Divine 


ISO  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

law,  and  that,  therefore,  you  will  not  observe  it.  The  man  who  dis* 
obeys  any  one  clause  on  the  pretext  that  it  violates  the  Divine  law, 
or  on  any  other  pretext,  violates  his  oath  of  office. 

But,  sir,  what  a  commentary  is  this  pretext  that  the  Constitution  is 
a  violation  of  the  Divine  law,  upon  those  revolutionary  fathers  whose 
eulogies  we  have  heard  here  to-day.  Did  the  framers  of  that  instru 
ment  make  a  Constitution  in  violation  of  the  law  of  God  ?  If  so,  how 
do  your  consciences  alloAv  you  to  take  the  oath  of  office?  If  the  sena 
tor,  from  New  York  still  holds  to  his  declaration  that  the  clause  in  the 
Constitution  relative  to  fugitive  slaves  is  a  violation  of  the  Divine 
law,  how  dare  he,  as  an  honest  man,  take  an  oath  to  support  the  in 
strument  ?  Did  he  understand  that  he  was  defying  the  authority  of 
Heaven  when  he  took  the  oath  to  support  that  instrument  ? 

Thus,  we  see,  the  radical  difference  between  the  ^Republican  party 
and  the  Democratic  party  is  this :  we  stand  by  the  Constitution  as 
our  fathers  made  it,  and  by  the  decisions  of  the  constituted  authori 
ties  as  they  are  pronounced  in  obedience  to  the  Constitution.  They 
repudiate  the  instrument,  substitute  their  own  will  for  that  of  the 
constituted  authorities,  annul  such  provisions  as  their  fanaticism,  or 
prejudice,  or  policy,  may  declare  to  be  in  violation  of  God's  law,  and 
then  say :  "  We  will  protect  all  your  rights  under  the  Constitution  as 
expounded  by  ourselves ;  but  not  as  expounded  by  the  tribunal  cre 
ated  for  that  purpose." 

Mr.  President,  I  shall  not  occupy  further  time  in  the  discussion  of 
this  question  to-night.  I  did  not  intend  to  utter  a  word;  and  I 
should  not  have  uttered  a  word  upon  the  subject,  if  the  senator  from 
New  York  had  not  made  a  broad  arraignment  of  the  Democratic 
party,  and  especially  of  that  portion  of  the  action  of  the  party  for 
which  I  was  most  immediately  responsible.  Everybody  knows  that  I 
brought  forward  and  helped  to  carry  through  the  Kansas-Nebraska 
act,  and  that  I  was  active  in  support  of  the  compromise  measures  of 
1850.  I  have  heard  bad  faith  attached  to  the  Democratic  party  for 
that  act  too  long  to  be  willing  to  remain  silent  and  seem  to  sanction 
it  even  by  tacit  acquiescence. 

MR.  TRTTMBULL  having  replied, 

ME.  DOUGLAS  responded  as  follows :  I  have  but  a  few  words  to 
say,  in  reply  to  my  colleague ;  and  first  on  the  question,  whether 
Illinois  was  a  slave  Territory  or  not,  and  whether  we  ever  had 
slavery  in  the  State.  I  dislike  technical  denials,  conveying  an  idea 
contrary  to  the  fact.  My  colleague  well  knows,  and  so  do  I,  that, 
practically,  we  had  slaves  there  while  a  Territory,  and  after  we  be 
came  a  State.  I  have  seen  him  dance  to  the  music  of  a  negro  slave 
in  Illinois  many  a  time,  and  I  have  danced  to  the  same  music  myself. 
[Laughter.]  We  have  both  had  the  same  negro  servants  to  black  our 
boots  and  wait  upon  us,  and  they  were  held  as  slaves.  We  know, 
therefore,  that  slavery  did  exist  in  the  State  in  fact,  and  slavery  did 
exist  in  the  Territory  in  fact;  and  his  denial  relates  exclusively  to 
the  question  whether  slavery  was  legal.  Whether  legal  or  not,  it 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  181 

existed  in  fact.  The  master  exercised  his  dominion  over  the  slave, 
and  those  negroes  were  held  as  slaves  until  1847,  when  we  estab 
lished  the  new  Constitution.  There  are  gentlemen  around  me  here, 
who  know  the  fact — gentlemen  who  were  nursed  by  slaves  in 
Illinois.  No  man  familiar  with  the  history  of  Illinois  will  deny  the 
fact.  The  quibble  is,  that  the  Territorial  laws  authorizing  the  intro 
duction  of  slaves  were  void  because  the  ordinance  of  1787  said  slavery 
was  prohibited. 

Notwithstanding  that  ordinance,  the  old  French  inhabitants,  who 
had  slaves  before  the  ordinance,  paid  no  attention  to  it,  and  held 
slaves  still.  Slaves  were  held  there  all  the  time  that  Illinois  was  a 
Territory ;  and  after  it  became  a  State  they  were  held  till  they 
all  died  out,  and  their  children  became  emancipated  under  the  con 
stitution.  It  is  a  fact;  we  all  know  it.  That  gentlemen  have  seen 
many  of  those  old  French  slaves,  who  were  held  in  defiance  of  the 
ordinance.  Whether  they  were  lawfully  held  or  not,  the  Territorial 
authorities  sustained  the  rights  of  the  master.  Not  only  were  slaves 
held  by  the  French  before  the  ordinance,  but  the  Territorial  legisla 
ture  passed  a  law  in  substance  to  this  effect :  any  citizen  might  go  to 
Kentucky,  or  any  other  State  or  Territory,  where  slaves  were  held, 
and  bring  slaves  into  the  Territory  of  Illinois,  take  them  to  a  county 
court,  and  in  open  court  enter  into  an  indenture  by  which  the  slave 
and  his  posterity  were  to  serve  him  for  ninety-nine  years ;  and  in 
the  event  that  the  slave  refused  to  enter  into  the  indenture,  the 
master  should  have  a  certain  time  to  take  him  out  of  the  Territory 
and  sell  him.  The  senator  now  says  that  law  was  not  valid.  Valid 
or  not,  it  was  executed  ;  slaves  were  introduced,  and  they  were 
held ;  they  were  used ;  they  were  worked ;  and  they  died  slaves. 
That  is  the  fact.  I  have  had  handed  to  me  a  book  showing  the  number 
of  slaves  in  Illinois  at  the  taking  of  the  various  censuses,  by  which  it 
appears  that,  when  the  census  of  1810  was  taken,  there  were  in  Illi 
nois  168  slaves  ;  in  1820,  917  ;  in  1830,  747  ;  and  in  1840,  331.  In 
1850  there  were  none,  for  the  reason  that,  in  1847,  we  adopted  a 
new  constitution  that  prohibited  slavery  entirely,  and  by  that  time 
they  had  nearly  all  died.  The  census  shows  that  at  one  time  there 
were  as  many  as  nine  hundred  slaves,  and  at  all  times  the  dominion 
of  the  master  was  maintained. 

The  fact  is,  that  the  people  of  the  Territory  of  Illinois,  when  it  was 
a  Territory,  were  almost  all  from  the  southern  States,  particularly 
from  Kentucky  and  Tennessee.  The  southern  end  of  the  State  was 
the  only  part  at  first  settled — that  part  called  Egypt — because  it  is 
the  land  of  letters  and  of  plenty.  Civilization  and  learning  all  origi 
nated  in  Egypt.  The  northern  part  of  the  State,  where  the  political 
friends  of  my  colleague  now  preponderate,  was  then  in  the  possession 
of  the  Indians,  and  so  were  northern  Indiana  and  northern  Ohio ; 
and  a  Yankee  could  not  get  to  Illinois  at  all,  unless  he  passed  down 
through  Virginia  and  over  iuto  Tennessee  and  through  Kentucky. 
The  consequence  was,  that  ninety-nine  out  of  a  hundred  of  the  set- 


132  THE     LIFE     AND      SPEECHES     OF 

tiers  were  from  the  slave  States.  They  carried  the  old  family 
servants  with  them,  and  kept  them.  They  were  told,  "  Here  is  an 
ordinance  of  Congress  passed  against  your  holding  them."  They 
said,  a  What  has  Congress  to  do  with  our  domestic  institutions? 
Congress  had  better  mind  its  own  business,  and  let  us  alone ;  we 
know  what  we  want  better  than  Congress  ;"  and  hence  they  passed 
this  law  to  bring  them  in  and  make  them  indentured.  Under  that, 
they  established  slavery  and  held  slaves  as  long  as  they  wanted  them. 
When  they  assembled  to  make  the  constitution  of  Illinois,  in  1818, 
for  admission  into  the  Union,  nearly  every  delegate  to  the  convention 
brought  his  negro  along  with  him  to  black  his  boots,  play  the  fiddle, 
wait  upon  him,  and  take  care  of  his  room.  They  had  a  jolly  time 
there  ;  they  were  dancing  people,  frolicksome  people,  people  who 
enjoyed  life  ;  they  had  the  old  French  habits.  Slaves  were  just  as 
thick  there  as  blackberries. 

But  they  said  "Experience  proves  that  it  is  not  going  to  be  profit 
able  in  this  climate."  There  were  no  scruples  about  it.  Every  one 
of  them  was  nursed  by  it.  His  mother  and  his  father  held  slaves. 
They  had  no  scruples  about  its  being  right,  but  they  said,  u  We  can 
not  make  any  money  by  it,  and  as  our  State  runs  way  off  north  up  to 
those  eternal  snows,  perhaps  we  shall  gain  population  faster  if  we 
stop  slavery  and  invite  in  the  northern  population  ;"  and,  as  a  matter 
of  political  policy,  state  policy,  they  prohibited  slavery  themselves. 
How  did  they  prohibit  it?  Not  by  emancipating,  setting  at  liberty, 
the  slaves  then  in  the  State,  for  I  believe  that  has  never  been  done  by 
any  legislative  body  in  America,  and  I  doubt  whether  any  one  will 
ever  arrogate  to  itself  the  right  to  divest  property  already  there  ;  but 
they  provided  that  all  slaves  then  in  the  State  should  remain  slaves 
for  life ;  that  all  indentured  persons  should  fulfill  the  terms  of  their 
indentures.  Ninety-nine  years  was  about  long  enough,  I  reckon,  for 
grown  persons  at  least. 

All  persons  of  slave  parents,  after  a  certain  time,  were  to  be  free 
at  a  certain  age,  and  all  born  after  a  certain  other  period,  were  to  be 
free  at  their  birth.  It  was  a  gradual  system  of  emancipation.  Hence, 
I  now  repeat,  that  so  long  as  the  ordinance  of  1787,  passed  by  Con 
gress,  said  Illinois  should  not  have  slavery,  she  did  have  it ;  and  the 
very  first  day  that  our  people  arrived  at  that  condition  that  they 
could  do  as  they  pleased,  to  wit,  when  they  became  a  State,  they 
adopted  a  system  of  gradual  emancipation;  but  still  slavery  continued 
in  the  State,  as  the  census  of  1820,  the  census  of  1830,  and  the  census 
of  1840,  show,  until  the  new  constitution  of  1847,  when  nearly  all  those 
old  slaves  had  died  out,  and  probably  there  were  riot  a  halt-dozen 
alive.  That  was  the  way  slavery  was  introduced  and  expired  in 
Illinois.  Whatever  quibbles  there  may  be  about  legal  construction, 
legal  right,  these  are  the  facts. 

Look  into  the  Territorial  legislation,  and  you  will  finf  as  rigorous 
a  code  for  the  protection  of  slave  property  as  in  any  State ;  a  code 
prescribing  the  control  of  the  master,  providing  that  if  a  negro  slavo 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  183 

should  leave  his  master's  farm  "without  leave,  or  in  the  night  time, 
he  should  be  punished  by  so  many  stripes,  and  if  he  committed  such 
an  offence  he  should  receive  so  many  stripes,  and  so  on;  as  rigorous 
a  code  as  ever  existed  in  any  southern  State  of  this  Union.  Not 
only  that,  but  after  the  State  caino  into  the  Union,  the  State  of 
Illinois  reenacted  that  code,  and  continued  it  up  to  the  time  that 
slavery  died  out  under  the  operation  of  the  State  constitution. 

I  dislike,  sir,  to  have  a  controversy  with  my  colleague  about  histo 
rical  facts.  I  suppose  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  has  no  parti 
cular  interest  in  the  early  history  of  Illinois,  but  it  has  become 
obligatory  on  me  to  vindicate  my  statement  to  that  extent. 

Now,  sir,  a  word  about  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise. 
I  have  had  occasion  to  refer  to  that  before  in  the  Senate,  and  I  am 
sorry  to  have  to  refer  to  it  again. 

My  colleague  arraigns  me  as  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Terri 
tories  against  myself  as  a  member  of  the  Senate  in  1854.  upon  the 
Nebraska  Bill.  He  says  that,  as  chairman  of  the  committee,  I 
reported  that  we  did  not  see  proper  to  depart  from  the  example  of 
1850 ;  that  as  the  Mexican  laws  were  not  then  repealed  in  terms,  we 
did  not  propose  in  terms  to  repeal  the  Missouri  restriction,  but — 
there  the  senator  stops,  and  there  the  essense  of  the  report  begins — 
but,  the  report  added,  this  committee  proposes  to  carry  out  the  prin 
ciples  embodied  in  the  Compromise  measures  of  1850  in  precise 
language,  and  then  we  go  on  to  state  what  those  principles  were; 
and  one  was,  that  the  people  of  a  Territory  should  settle  the  question 
of  slavery  for  themselves,  and  we  reported  a  bill  giving  them  that- 
power. 

But  inasmuch  as  the  power  to  introduce  slavery,  notwithstanding 
the  Mexican  laws,  was  conferred  on  the  Territorial  legislatures  under 
the  compromise  measures  of  1850,  the  right  to  introduce  it  into 
Kansas,  notwithstanding  the  Missouri  restriction,  was  also  proposed 
to  be  conferred  without  expressly  repealing  the  restriction.  The 
legal  effect  was  precisely  the  same.  Afterward  some  gentlemen 
said  they  would  rather  have  the  legal  effect  expressed  in  plain  lan 
guage. 

I  said,  "If  you  want  a  repealing  act,  have  it:  it  does  not  alter 
the  legal  effect."  I  said  so  at  the  time,  as  the  debates  show ;  and 
hence  I  put  in  the  express  provision  that  the  Missouri  act  was 
thereby  repealed.  It  did  not  change  the  legal  effect  of  the  bill ;  but 
that  variation  of  language  has  been  the  staple  of  a  great  many  stump 
speeches,  a  great  many  miserable  quibbles  of  county  court  lawyers, 
a  great  many  attempts  to  prove  inconsistency  by  small  politicians  in 
the  country.  Be  it  so.  The  people  understand  that  thing.  The 
object  I  had  in  view  was  to  allow  the  people  to  do  as  they  pleased. 
The  first  bill  accomplished  that ;  the  amendment  accomplished  it. 
"Whether  that  was  the  object  of  others  or  not,  is  another  question. 
That  was  my  object.  The  two  bills,  in  my  opinion,  had  the  same 
legal  effect ;  but  I  said  if  any  one  doubts  it,  I  will  make  it  plain. 


184:  THE     LIFE     AND     SPEECHES     OF 

Some  said,  "  we  doubt  whether  that  gives  the  right."  Then  I  mado 
it  plain,  and  brought  it  in  in  express  terms,  and  he  calls  a  change  of 
language,  without  varying  the  legal  effect,  a  change  of  policy.  My 
colleague  is  welcome  to  make  the  most  out  of  that.  I  have  had 
that  arraignment  over  and  over  again. 

The  senator  has  some  doubt  as  to  whether  I  am  in  good 
standing  in  my  own  party  ;  whether  I  am  a  good  represen 
tative  of  northwestern  Democracy.  I  have  nothing  to  say  about 
that.  I  will  allow  the  people  to  speak  in  their  conventions  on  that 
subject.  Whether  I  represent  the  Democracy  of  Illinois  or  not,  I 
shall  not  say.  The  people  understand  all  that.  I  can  only  say  that 
I  have  been  in  the  Democratic  party  all  my  life,  and  I  know  what 
our  Democrats  mean.  My  colleague  indorsed  and  approved  the 
compromise  measures  of  1850.  He  was  a  Democrat  a  few  years  ago. 
Even  in  1856,  he  declared,  I  believe,  that  he  could  not  vote  for  me, 
if  nominated,  but  he  would  vote  for  Mr.  Buchanan ;  but,  after  the 
nomination,  he  did  not  like  the  platform,  and  he  went  over.  Lhavo 
no  objection  to  that ;  it  is  all  right  enough.  I  never  intended  to 
taunt  him  with  inconsistency  ;  but  I  do  not  think  he  is  as  safe  and  as 
authoritative  an  expounder  of  the  Republican  party  as  the  senator 
from  New  York.  The  senator  from  New  York  says  that  a  State 
that  does  not  allow  a  negro  to  vote  on  an  equality  with  a  white  man 
is  a  slave  State.  I  read  his  speech  here  to-day.  I  suppose  the  sena 
tor  from  New  York  is  a  pretty  good  Republican.  I  thought  he  spoke 
with  some  authority  for  his  party.  1  did  not  suppose  those  neo 
phytes  who  had  just  come  into  the  party  were  going  to  unsettle  and 
unhorse  the  leader  and  embodiment  of  the  party  so  quickly,  and 
prescribe  a  platform  that  would  rule  out  the  senator  from  New 
York.  I  must  be  permitted,  therefore,  to  take  the  authority  of  the 
leaders  of  the  party  in  preference  to  those  who  are  kept  in  the  rank 
and  file  until  they  have  served  an  apprenticeship.  (Laughter.) 

The  senator  from  New  York  says  it  is  slavery  not  to  allow  the 
negro  to  vote.  Well,  sir,  I  hold  that  that  is  political  slavery.  If 
you  disfranchise  a  man,  you  make  him  a  political  slave.  Deprive  a 
white  man  of  a  voice  in  his  government,  and,  politically,  he  is  a 
slave.  Hence  the  inequality  you  create  is  slavery  to  that  extent. 
My  colleague  will  not  allow  a  negro  to  vote.  He  lives  too  far  south 
in  Illinois  for  that,  decidedly.  He  has  to  expound  the  creed  down 
in  Egypt.  They  have  other  expositions  up  north.  The  creed  is 
pretty  black  in  the  north  end  of  the  State ;  about  the  centre  it  is  a 
pretty  good  mulatto,  and  it  is  almost  white  when  you  get  down  into 
Egypt.  It  assumes  paler  shades  as  you  go  south.  The  Democrats 
of  Illinois  have  one  creed,  and  we  can  proclaim  it  everywhere  alike. 

The  senator,  my  colleague,  complains  that  I  represent  his  party  to 
be  in  favor  of  negro  equality.  No  such  thing,  says  he :  "I  tell  my 
colleague  to  his  teeth  it  is  not  so."  There  is  something  very  fearful 
in  the  manner  in  which  he  said  it !  Senators  know  that  he  is  a 
dangerous  man  who  says  things  to  a  man's  teeth,  and  I  shall  be  verjr 


STEPHEN     A.     DOUGLAS.  185 

cautious  how  I  reply.  But  lie  says  he  does  hold  that  by  the  law  of 
God  the  negro  and  the  white  man  are  created  equal ;  that  is,  he 
says,  in  a  state  of  nature ;  and,  therefore,  he  says  he  indorses  that 
clause  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  as  including  the  negro  as 
well  as  the  white  man.  I  do  not  think  I  misstate  my  colleague.  He 
thinks  that  clause  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  includes  the 
negro  as  well  as  the  white  man.  He  declares,  therefore,  that  the 
negro  and  the  white  man  were  created  equal.  What  does  that 
Declaration  also  say :  "  We  hold  these  truths  to  be  self-evident ; 
that  they  are  endowed  by  their  Creator  with  certain  inalienable 
'ights,-  among  which  are  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness." 
.f  the  negro  and  the  white  man  are  created  equal,  and  that  equality 
.s  an  inalienable  right,  by  what  authority  is  my  colleague  and  his 
party  going  to  deprive  the  negro  of  that  inalienable  right  which  he 
got  directly  from  God  ?  He  says  the  Eepublican  party  is  not  in 
favor  of  according  to  the  negro  an  inalienable  right  which  he  re 
ceived  directly  from  his  Maker.  Oli,  no ;  he  tells  me  to  my  teeth 
that  they  are  not  in  favor  of  that ;  they  will  not  obey  the  laws  of 
God  at  all.  Their  creed  is  to  to  take  away  inalienable  rights. 
Well,  I  have  found  that  out  before,  and  that  is  just  the  reason 
I  complain  of  them,  that  they  are  for  taking  away  inalienable 
righ'ts, 

If  they  will  cling  to  the  doctrine  that  the  Declaration  of  Inde 
pendence  conferred  certain  inalienable  rights,  among  which,  we  are 
told,  is  equality  between  the  white  man  and  the  negro,  they  are 
bound  to  make  the  human  laws  they  establish  conform  to  those  God- 
given  rights  which  are  inalienable.  If  they  believe  the  first  propo 
sition,  as  honest  men,  they  are  bound  to  carry  the  principle  to  its 
logical  conclusion,  and  give  the  negro  his  equality  and  voice  in  the 
government ;  let  him  vote  at  elections,  hold  office,  serve  on  juries, 
make  him  judge,  governor,  ("  senator.")  No,  they  cannot  make  him 
a  senator,  because  the  Supreme  Court  has  decided  that  he  is  not  a 
citizen.  The  Dred  Scott  decision  is  in  the  way.  Perhaps  that  is 
the  reason  of  the  objection  to  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  that  a  negro 
cannot  be  a  senator.  I  say,  if  you  hold  that  the  Almighty  created 
the  negro  the  equal  of  the  white  man,  and  that  equality  be  an  in 
alienable  right,  you  are  bound  to  confer  the  elective  franchise  and 
every  other  privilege  of  political  equality  on  the  negro.  The  senator 
from  New  York  stands  up  to  it  like  a  man.  His  logic  drove  him 
there,  and  he  had  the  honesty  to  avow  the  consequence  of  his  own 
doctrine.  That  is  to  say,  he  did  it  before  the  Harper's  Ferry  raid. 
He  did  not  say  it  quite  as  plainly  to-day  ;  for  I  will  do  the  senator 
from  New  York  the  justice  to  say,  that,  in  his  speech  to-day,  I  think 
he  made  the  most  successful  effort,  considered  as  an  attempt  to  con 
ceal  what  he  meant.  (Laughter.)  He  dealt  in  vague  generalities  ; 
he  dealt  in  disclaimers  and  general  denials ;  and  he  covered  it  all  up 
with  a  verbiage  that  would  allow  anybody  to  infer  just  what  he 
pleased,  but  not  to  commit  the  senator  to  anything ;  and  to  let  the 


186       THE  LIFE  AND   SPEECHES   OF 

country  know  that  there  was  no  danger  from  the  success  of  the  Ee- 
publican  party  ;  that  they  did  not  mean  any  harm  ;  that  if  men,  be 
lieving  in  the  truth  of  their  doctrines,  did  go  and  commit  invasions, 
murders,  robberies,  and  treason,  all  they  had  to  do  was  to  disavow 
the  men  who  were  fools  enough  to  believe  them,  and  they  are  not 
responsible  for  the  consequences  of  their  own  action! 

Now,  Mr.  President,  I  wish  my  colleague  were  equally  as  frank  as 
the  senator  from  New  York.  That  senator  is  in  favor  of  the  equal 
ity  of  the  negro  with  the  white  man,  or  else  he  would  not  say  that 
the  Almighty  guaranteed  to  them  an  inalienable  right  of  equality. 
My  colleague  dare  not  deny  the  inalienable  rights  of  the  negro,  for 
if  he  did,  the  Abolitionists  would  quit  him»  He  dare  not  avow  itk 
lest  the  old  line  "Whigs  should  quit  him ;  hence  he  is  riding  double 
on  this  question.  I  have  no  desire  to  conceal  my  opinions ;  and  I 
repeat  that  I  do  not  believe  the  negro  race  is  any  part  of  the  govern 
ing  element  in  this  country,  except  as  an  element  of  representation 
in  the  manner  expressly  provided  in  the  Constitution.  This  is  a 
white  man's  government,  made  by  white  men  for  the  benefit  of 
white  men,  to  be  administered  by  white  men  and  nobody  else ;  and 
I  should  regret  the  day  that  we  ever  allowed  the  negroes  to  have  a 
hand  in  its  administration.  Not  that  the  negro  is  not  entitled  to 
any  privileges  at  all ;  on  the  contrary,  I  hold  that  humanity  requires 
us  to  allow  the  unfortunate  negro  to  enjoy  all  the  rights  and  privi 
leges  that  he  may  safely  exercise  consistent  with  the  good  of  society. 
We  may,  with  safety,  give  them  some  privileges  in  Illinois  that 
would  not  be  safe  in  Mississippi;  because  we  have  but  few,  while 
that  State  has  many.  We  will  take  care  of  our  negroes,  if  Missis 
sippi  will  take  care  of  hers.  Each  has  a  right  to  decide  for  itself 
what  shall  be  the  relation  of  the  negro  to  the  white  man  within  its 
own  limits,  and  no  other  State  has  a  right  to  interfere  with  its  de 
termination. 

On  that  principle  there  is  no  "  irrepressible  conflict ;"  there  is  no 
conflict  at  all.  If  we  will  just  take  care  of  our  own  negroes,  and 
inind  our  own  business,  we  shall  get  along  very  well;  and  we  ask 
our  southern  friends  to  do  the  same,  and  they  seem  pretty  well  dis 
posed  to  do  it.  Therefore,  I  am  in  favor  of  just  firing  a  broadside 
into  our  Republican  friends  over  there,  who  will  keep  interfering 
with  other  people's  business.  That  is  the  complaint  I  have  of  them. 
They*keep  holding  up  the  negro  for  us  to  worship,  and  when  they 
get  the  power,  they  will  not  give  him  the  rights  they  claim  for  him  ; 
they  will  not  give  him  his  inalienable  rights.  New  York  has  not 
given  the  negro  those  inalienable  rights  of  suffrage  yet.  The  sena 
tor  from  New  York  represents  a  slave  State,  according  to  his  own 
speech  ;  because  New  York  does  not  allow  the  negro  to  vote  on  an 
equality  with  a  white  man.  It  is  true,  in  New  York  they  do  allow 
a  negro  to  vote,  if  he  owns  $250  worth  of  property,  but  not  with 
out.  They  suppose  $250  just  compensates  for  the  diflference  be 
tween  a  rich  negro  and  a  poor  white  man.  (Laughter.)  They 


STEPHEN     A.    DOUGLAS.  187 

allow  the  rich  negro  to  vote,  and  do  not  allow  the  poor  one ;  and 
the  senator  from  New  York  thinks  that  is  a  system  of  slavery.  It 
may  be  ;  let  New  York  decide  that ;  it  is  her  business.  I  do  not 
want  to  interfere  with  it.  Just  let  us  alone.  We  do  not  want 
negro  suffrage.  We  say  "non-interference;"  hands  off.  If  you 
like  the  association  of  the  negroes  at  the  polls,  that  is  your  business ; 
if  you  want  them  to  hold  office,  so  that  they  do  not  come  here,  give 
offices  to  them,  if  you  choose  ;  if  you  want  them  for  magistrates,  that 
is  your  business  ;  but  you  must  not  send  them  here  ;  because  we  do 
not  allow  anybody  but  citizens  to  hold  seats  on  this  floor ;  and, 
thank  God,  the  Dred  Scott  case  has  decided  that  a  negro  is  not  a 
citizen. 


KBTUKN 


LOAN  DEPT 


j     2lA-60m-10,'65 
(F7763slO)476B 


Berkeley 


YB  374 


U.C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


o*,- 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


